APHC010398382016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5611/2016 Between:

Merla Harischandra Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S)

Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“..to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction one in the Nature of the Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in demanding the petitioner to vacate and handover the land of an extent of Ac.2.32 cents in R.S.Nos.90/3 90/4 of Mukkamala Village, Peravali Mandal under his tenancy as highly arbitrary unlawful high handed violating the Principles of Natural Justice and fundamental rights of the petitioner against to the provisions of Sec 82 of A.P Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 without considering and contrary to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent vide R.C.No.A1/4218/2003 Adm, Dt 08.01.2005 declaring the petitioner as landless poor by consequently directing the respondent nos.2 & 3 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the tenancy land i.e of an extent of Ac.2.32 cents in R.S.Nos.90/3 and 90/4 of Mukkamala Village Peravali Mandal....”

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner has been cultivating the lands of an extent of Ac.2.32 cents in R.S.No.90/3, 90/4 of Mukkamala Village, Peravali Mandal for the last 30 years under Sri Bhimeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, which was later under the control and management of the 2^nd respondent. During the year 2004, on the application made by the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent has issued proceedings vide R.C.No.A1/4218/2003 Adm, dated 08.01.2005 declaring the petitioner as landless poor. While so, the 3^rd respondent demanding the petitioner to vacate the land and hand over the vacant passion of the same. It is humbly submitted that the 3^rd respondent did not heed the words of the petitioner, but finally demanded the petitioner and asked the petitioner to vacate by this month and handover the vacate possession by March, 2016, for which he is not entitled to. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. This Court on 22.02.2016 while issuing ‘Notice before admission’

has granted an order of status-quo for a period of two (02) weeks. Thereafter, the respondents did not file counter till date.

4. Heard Mr Nanilu Naidu, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the Writ Petition submits that though the petitioner is continuing as tenant over the subject land and has been paying the annual cist regularly, but Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are demanding the petitioner to vacate and handover the land to an extent of Ac.2.32 cents in R.S.No.90/3, 90/4 of Mukkamala Vilage, Peravali Mandal to them which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders.

6. Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

7 Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, if the respondents intend to take any steps against the petitioner with regard to the subject property, they are directed to follow due process of law. Till then, the respondents are directed not