KUNA POTHU RAJU v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.5 & 6 not to disturb the possession of petitioner with respect to the subject 1 lease hold land. However, the petitioner shall continue to remit the lease rentals payable by him, as specified, while…
- Para 33. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there are no arrears to be payable to the Temple. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 shall indicate the arrears, if any, due from the petitioner and the petitioner shall accordingly remit the dues. If the petitioner…
Judgment
Cause title
Restaurant, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, NTR District 3. The District Endowments Officer, Eluru District, Eluru. 4. The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru. Sri Mahankali and Mahankali Ammavari 5. KakarlamudiVillaged, Unguturu Mandal, Executive Officer. Devasthanam,' -521225. Eluru District. Rep. by its
6. The inspector. Endowments Department Eluru District. Tadepalligudem Division Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction nature of WRTT OF MANDAMUS Respondents in interfering with Petitioners more particularly one in the to declare the impugned action valid leasehold tenancy rights i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court ...RESPONDENTS
^ of India praying that in respect to land in Sy No 462 an extent of Ac 5.92 cents belongs to the Respondent temple situated at Kakarlamudi village. Unguturu Mandal, Eluru district and the 6*' Respondent i impugned Endorsement in Application NoELR2024122310379 dated 22. 1.2025 thereby informing to conduct fresh auction to above said land while existence of present lease period of three(3) years i.e 2024- 2025 to 2026-2027 which iIS highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power and violative of Natural Justice and violative of Article 300-A and Articles 14,21 of Constitution of India and also contrary to the Auction proceedings of 5th Respondent vide dated i 14-05-2024 01-05-2024 and consequently to set aside the aforementioned impugned proceedings and direct the Respondents not to interfere with Petitioners lawful valid leasehold tenancy rights of above said land and agriculture operations till completion of the lease period up to 2026-02027. of Principles notification pursuance auction public lA NO: 1 OF 907^ ' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased M p, Application Endorsement OELR2024122310379 dated 22.1.2025 of 6'^ respondent and direct the respondents direct the Respondents not to interfere with Petitioner's lawful valid leasehold tenancy rights of land in Sy No. 462 an extent of Ac 5.92 cents belongs to 5‘^ Respondent temple situated at Kakarlamudi village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru district and agriculture operations till completion of the lease period up to 2026-02027 per the Auction proceedings dated 14.5.2024 of 5*^ Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SMT. PULIPATI RADHIKA, SC FOR SRINIVASA RAO - The Court made the following: ORDER ENDOWMENTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT [3458] HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA THE
WRIT PETITION NO: 2432/2025 Between: KUNA POTHU RAJU ...PETITIONER
AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDE^fT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.S. SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Naga Bhushanam. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and Smt. Pulipati Radhika No.5.
Operative part
The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.5 & 6 not to disturb the possession of petitioner with respect to the subject 1 lease hold land. However, the petitioner shall continue to remit the lease rentals payable by him, as specified, while granting lease hold rights in respect of the subject land, which is Rs.2,16,000/-.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there are no arrears to be payable to the Temple. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 shall indicate the arrears, if any, due from the petitioner and the petitioner shall accordingly remit the dues. If the petitioner defaults in payment of the lease rentals, the Temple is at liberty to go for fresh auction. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M RAJVIESH BABU deputy registrar SECTION OFFICER
Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, State ndhra Pradesh, A,P. Secretariat Building, Velgapudi, Amaravathr- Guntur District -522503.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Opp.S. Grand Restaurant, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, NTR District - 52122^.
3. The District Endowments Officer, Eluru District Eluru 4. The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru. 5. The Executive Officer, Sri Mahankali and Mahankali Ammavari . Devasthanam, KakarlamudiVillaged, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District he Inspector, Endowments Department, Tadepalligudem Division Eluru District. One CC to Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to Smt. Pulipati Radhika, SC for 9. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, 10. Three CD Copies. Endowments[OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.2432 of 2025 disposing of the w.p. without costs
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 01 May 2025. The bench was KIRANMAYEE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.