SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20710

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BALAJI MEDAMALLI
Maram Nagaraju – Appellant
Versus
The District Endowments Officer – Respondent
WP 14346/2026



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:21390

APHC010280132026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3573]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

WRIT PETITION NO: 14346/2026

Between:

1. M ARAM NAGARAJU, S/O VENKATA SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51

YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RIO H.NO.29-178-H8-1, SBI COLONY,

NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, ENDOWMENTS

DEPARTMENT NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT -518501

2. T HE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR

DISTRICT -518501

3. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY 'ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR - 522237

...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 a 'writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature

of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing

the Impugned Eviction Order dt.04-05-2026 directing the petitioner to vacate

and handover the schedule property to the Endowments Department within

15 days from the date of receipt of the order as arbitrary, illegal, beyond the

powers and contrary to Sec.83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:21390

of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Impugned

Eviction Order dt.04-05-2026 issued by the 1St respondent in the interest of

justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

suspend the Impugned Eviction Order dt.04-05-2026 issued by the 1St

respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P NAGENDRA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:21390

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

WRIT PETITION NO: 14346/2026

ORDER:

The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated

04.05.2026 issued by respondent No.1 whereby directed the petitioner to

vacate and handover the schedule property to the Endowments Department

within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case are that petitioner is the owner

and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-80 cents and Ac.1-24 cents situated

in Sy.Nos.91/1 and 91/3 of Mitnala Village, Nandyal Mandal and District,

having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed, dated 15.12.2011.

The 1-B register and Adangals disclose that petitioner is the owner and

possessor of the subject property. The grievance of petitioner is that the

Tahsildar issued the impugned order stating that the Tahsildar received an

application from the Chiarman of Sri Maremma Grama Devatha Temple,

Mitnala Village alleging that the subject land is belonging to Sri Maremma

Village Goddess Temple. Questioning the said notice, petitioner filed

W.P.No.34699 of 2025 and the same is pending before this Court.

Respondent No.1 issued a certificate of Registration under Section 43 of the

Act 30/1997 and a register under Section 43 of the Act was prepared in favour

of Sri Grama Devatha Devasthanam duly including the petitioner’s land

admeasuring Ac.5-32 cents in Sy.No.91 in the register. The authorities failed

##PAGE4##

4

2026:APHC:21390

to issue any notice to the petitioner before preparing the register under

Section 43 of the Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the explanation

submitted by petitioner dated 12.01.2026 has not been considered and the

reasons are recorded by the District Endowments Officer vide order, dated

04.05.2026. Taking advantage of the same, the auth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top