APHC010050622026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3106/2026 Between:

1. R AYASAM VENKATA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O CHINNA BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O 3-17, BAPANA COLONY VELIGANDIA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523224 TRUSTEE OF SRI SAMBODHVA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE VELIGANDIA ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI-522237

2. T HE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523001

3. T HE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI SAMBODHVA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE VELIGANDIA VILLAGE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523224

4. Z ILLA PARISHAD HIGH SCHOOL, REP. BY ITS HEAD MASTER VELIGANDIA VILLAGE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523241 ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in proposing to lease out the temple lands admeasuring Ac.6-08 cents in Sy.No.117/1B and Ac.7-62 cents in Sy.No.431/1A, in Gokulam Village, Veligandia Mandal, Prakasam District belonging to Sri Sambodhva Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Veligandia, to the 4th respondent school without conducting auction and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to lease out the said temple lands to the 4th respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.3106 of 2026 This Court made the following

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments and perused the material placed on record.

2. It is observed that there is no document filed by the petitioner to show that the Respondent Authorities are taking steps to alienate or transfer the subject property of the 3^rd Respondent – Temple in favour of the 4^th Respondent and further the petitioner neither filed requisition to the 4^th Respondent for such allotment nor made any proposal by the 3^rd Respondent for such transfer. In the absence of the same, the mere presumption or assumption of the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent is proposing to alienate the property in favour of the 4^th Respondent and invoking extraordinary jurisdiction on that presumption cannot be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for 3^rd Respondent specifically submitted that the Respondent Authorities so far have not taken any decision or steps for any alleged alienation or transfer in favour of the

4^th Respondent.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the Trustee of the 3^rd Respondent temple and Trust Board is also competent authority to look into the affairs of the Temple and if any such proposal or alienation process is initiated, either Trustee or any interested person of the 3^rd Respondent can challenge the same. In the absence of such proceedings or decision on the part of the official respondents, basing upon the mere presumptions and assumptions the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be permitted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty if any proceedings or steps are initiated as alleged above, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall st