w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District & Another v/s Kudupudi Geetha Ganga

    W.A. No. 689 of 2021 (Through physical mode)

    Decided On, 24 November 2021

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

    For the Appellants: GP for Endowments Counsel. For the Respondent: A. Satya Prasad, Senior Advocate for Prakash Buddarapu, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral Order

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10004 of 2021 and batch, insofar as it pertains to W.P.No.9744 of 2021, whereby the said writ petition was disposed of while remanding the matter to the Endowments Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the law.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/writ petitioner is a member of the family of Archakas of the Temple and she is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land, whereas the appellants herein filed O.A.No.498 of 2019 before the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani (V & M), Guntur District, for removal of encroachments treating the respondent as encroacher, as the property is belonging to the Temple. During pendency of the O.A., I.A.No.1095 of 2019 was disposed of on 23.3.2021, directing the respondent therein to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month towards damages.

3. The learned single Judge held that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by a Member of the Endowments Tribunal, who was placed as Full Additional Charge and not a regular Member, and thereby, the Endowments Tribunal was not properly constituted in terms of Section 162 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and disposal of interlocutory application, recording a finding that the writ petitioner is an encroacher, is amounting to deciding the main O.A., accordingly, set-aside the said impugned order on various grounds and remanded the matter to the Endowments Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

4. Aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed raising several contentions.

5. During the course of hearing, learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that in the event of implementation of the order of learned single Judge to decide the I.A. afresh along with the O.A., there will be any amount of delay in deciding the petition for awarding of damages, and to avoid such delay, the order passed by the learned single Judge has to be set-aside, while upholding the order passed by the Endowments Tribunal and the learned single Judge erred in setting aside the order.

6. It is true that O.A.No.498 of 2019 was filed for removal of encroachments from the land belonging to the Temple. Unless the Endowments Tribunal concludes that the respondent/writ petitioner’s occupation is unauthorised and the subject land is belonging to the Temple, the question of granting damages at interlocutory stage does not arise. It amounts to deciding the main O.A. itself, treating the writ petitioner as encroacher. Hence, the order passed by the Endowments Tribunal is premature.

7. Since the nature of occupation of the writ petitioner has to be decided only at the conclusion of hearing of O.A. and the question of awarding damages at interlocutory stage does not arise, the learned single Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Endowments Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the I.A. along with the O.A. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.

8. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

and accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage, while confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge insofar as it pertains to W.P.No.9744 of 2021. Learned Chairman of the Endowments Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 9. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
O R