P. Rama Chandra Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

LISA GILL, CJ.

Present Writ Appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 07.05.2026 passed by learned Single Bench whereby writ petition filed by present appellant/writ petitioner has been disposed of while affording liberty to appellant to invoke jurisdiction under Section 83(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘Act, 1987’) before the Endowment Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of said order. During such period for submission of appeal, respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action against appellant failing which, respondents would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that appellant filed W.P.No.4017 of 2026 with following prayer:

It was pleaded before learned writ Court that, vide G.O.Ms.No.988, Revenue (ENDTS-II) Department, dated 30.11.1990, Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer, Sri Bugga Matt to sell the land as described (Ac. 4.26 cents in Sy.Nos.216/1 and 314/2) in favour of sitting tenants, Sri D. Venkatesam and Sri D. Munaswamy.

Appellant’s vendors i.e. Sri D. Venkatesam and Sri D. Munaswamy purchased said land from Sri Bugga Matt. Appellant purchased land from Sri D. Venkatesam and appellant’s father namely Sri P. Lakshmu Reddy purchased land from Sri D. Munaswamy, which are described as under and as reproduced in paragraph No.2 of impugned order:

It was further pleaded that appellant is the owner in possession of land to the extent of Ac.0.47 cents each in Sy.Nos.261/1 and 314/2 respectively after acquiring it through two separate registered sale deeds bearing Nos.1297/1991 and 1337/1991 from Sri D. Venkatesam; father of appellant also acquired land as described by registered sale deed bearing No.4543 of 1991. However, impugned show cause notice dated 07.03.2025 were issued by respondent No.4 under section 83(2) of Act, 1987, for removal of alleged encroachments over endowment property belonging to Sri Bugga Mutt, Tirupati, in Sy.No.261/1 to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents and Sy.No.261/2 to an extent of Ac.2.38 cents i.e. a total of Ac.3.88 cents situated at M.R.Palli, Tirupati Urban Mandal.

Said show cause notice dated 07.03.2025 was challenged by appellant by way of W.P.No.6348 of 2025. It was disposed of by learned Single Bench on 12.03.2025 directing appellant to submit his explanation before competent authority along with supporting documents within ten days and the respondent, it was directed, shall consider said explanation and pass appropriate detailed order within three weeks thereafter, subsequent to providing an opportunity of hearing to appellant.

It was submitted that explanation dated 21.03.2025 was submitted by appellant along with supporting documentation and that appellant also requested for providing detail of the land which Sri Bugga Mutt had sold to general public, by virtue of which, it was claimed that land in question had lost its characteristic of being an endowment land. When the documents as claimed were not supplied to appellant and survey notices dated 28.03.2025 and 11.04.2025 were issued, W.P.No.9848 of 2025 was filed. During pendency of said writ petition, proceedings dated 16.05.2025 were issued directing appellant to remove alleged encroachment within ten days, without furnishing requisite documents which had been sought by appellant, thereby denying him effective hearing and in violation of orders of this Court passed on 12.03.2025 and 16.04.2025.

This led to filing of W.P.No.13868 of 2025, which was disposed of on 22.05.2025, without going into the merits thereof, affording liberty to appellant to avail effective and efficacious alternate remedy available to him under Section 83(6) of Act i.e. to approach the Endowments Tribunal. SLP (C) No.16032 of 2025 filed by appellant was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2025 granting liberty to appellant to pursue writ appeal against order dated 22.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13868 of 2025. It was further directed that order of status quo granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.06.2025 would continue for a period of two weeks and Division Bench would be entitled to pass such orders as it may deem fit in accordance with law.

W.A.No.757 of 2025 was then filed by appellant challenging order dated 22.05.2025. Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by respondent No.4 was set aside while concluding that documents pertaining to Sy.Nos.261/1 and 261/2 be furnished to appellant.

It is the case of appellant that despite detailed representation, only a limited and selective set of documents was provided by proceedings dated 09.07.2025. Appellant, it is submitted, presented a detailed representation dated 17.07.2025 before authorities stating that documents furnished were wholly insufficient and were not in compliance with directions of this Court. It was contended that without supplying documents as required, another notice dated 30.08.2025 and, ultimately, notice dated 29.12.2025 were issued. Reply was again submitted by appellant on 06.01.2026, but without considering the same and without supplying documents as required, impugned proceedings dated 30.01.2026 were passed holding appellant to be in unauthorized occupation of subject land and removal of encroachment was directed within ten days.

Aggrieved therefrom, W.P.No.4017 of 2026 was filed by appellant which was disposed of by learned Single Bench vide impugned order dated 07.05.2026.

Learned Senior Counsel for appellant vehemently argued that respondent No.4 has deliberately not complied with specific and binding directions of Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.757 of 2025; foundational documents expressly referred to in the show cause notice have not been provided, therefore, the course adopted by learned Single Judge in relegating appellant to his remedy before learned Tribunal is unjustified as it is clearly a jurisdictional issue which arises for consideration.

Moreover, impugned proceedings dated 30.01.2026 display a complete lack of application of mind inasmuch as detailed replies submitted by appellant have not even been considered. It was further submitted that learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that respondent No.4 deliberately altered boundaries of subject land without any explanation or supporting material, only with a view to suppress the existence of a number of houses which are raised on the land, now claimed by the Mutt. Furthermore, proceedings have been conducted by respondent authorities in a selective and discriminatory manner inasmuch as no notice or inquiry has been initiated against any other persons, including relatives of appellant, who also own portions of subject survey numbers under registered documents.

It was strenuously argued by learned Senior Counsel that basic premise upon which appellant was raising his claim is that land in question had lost its character of being endowment land on the ground that the Mutt had sold/alienated most of the land; appellant had raised his residential house in 2004 after obtaining requisite building permissions. In the given facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by learned Single Bench should be set aside and writ petition filed by appellant be allowed as prayed for.

Learned Advocate General has opposed this writ appeal while submitting that, as assured before Division Bench in W.A.No.757 of 2025, all eleven documents relating to subject land and within the control and custody of respondent No.4 were provided. Moreover, respondents have issued impugned proceedings for eviction in respect of land other than the one which is claimed to be under the ownership and possession of appellant.

It was submitted that appellant claimed himself to be absolute owner of property only to an extent of Ac.1.46½ cents in Sy.Nos.261/1 and 314/2, whereas impugned proceedings for eviction are in respect of land other than the aforesaid extent i.e. Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.261/1 and Ac.2.38 cents in Sy.No.261/2 of M.R.Palli, Tirupati Urban. It was again asserted that respondents are not taking any steps in respect of land which appellant and his father acquired through three separate registered title deeds as referred to. Arguments of learned Advocate General as are recorded in para 6 and 7 of impugned order were reiterated before us. Dismissal of writ appeal was thus sought.

We heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the file with their able assistance.

Factual matrix of events as they unfolded and as narrated in foregoing paras is not in dispute. Primary argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for appellant was that, in the absence of relevant documents being provided to appellant, writ petition should have been entertained and decided on merits rather than relegating appellant to his remedy of appeal.

Learned Senior Counsel for appellant had referred to order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Division Bench in W.A.No.757 of 2025 to state that writ petition should have been entertained now as well. However, we take note of the fact that learned Advocate General in said case had categorically stated that no hearing had been afforded to appellant before passing of order dated 16.05.2025 and that there is no objection in case the matter is decided after hearing appellant. Thus, it cannot be accepted that on this premise, writ petition should have been heard on merits.

It was further opined by Division Bench that appellant be furnished documents pertaining to Sy.Nos.261/1 and 261/2 falling in M.R.Palli Village in Tirupati. Learned Advocate General's statement to the effect that the documents which are within the power and control of the authority shall be furnished within one week was recorded. It was directed that the matter be heard afresh by an officer other than the one who had passed order dated 16.05.2025 and in case of an order adverse to the interest of appellant, same be not acted upon for a period of three weeks, to enable appellant to avail his remedies in law.

It is to be noted that during pendency of present appeal, certain documents statedly supplied to appellant, which were claimed to be illegible, it was informed, had been supplied again to him. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant was unable to point out any jurisdictional issue or any other ground which called for interference by writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the given facts and circumstances, learned Senior Counsel for appellant was unable to point out any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by learned Single Bench whereby writ petition has been disposed of while affording liberty to appellant to avail remedy of appeal available to him in accordance with law.

Judgment and order dated 07.05.2026 is accordingly upheld. We deliberately refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of case at this stage, lest there be prejudice to any of the parties.

Time afforded to appellant i.e. four weeks for invoking the jurisdiction under section 83(6) of Act 1987 before the Endowment Tribunal is extended for another period of four (4) weeks from the date of this order. Status quo as on today be maintained for said period of four weeks. There shall be no automatic extension of this period and the same shall be subject to decision as may be taken by appellate authority on the application for interim relief, if any, as may be filed by appellant.

Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.