Heard Mr v. Venugopala Rao, Iearned

3. Mamidi Lingamaiah, S/o Late Venkataswamy, ldied) ne1![P-2^2.' Agriculture " ii.rJbJiilivl r'll*6noa-c ram iinCrravat'shlnishabad( tvl) R'R District 4. Mamidi Yadaiah, S/o Late Venkataswamy Agriculture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda - 6;; ir;.h"vat,Shamshabad(M) R R District' 5. Smt Pulimamidi An.iamma, W/o Late Yadaial-r Housewife Ammapalli(V) " il;;L";;'G;r* erninavut,bhamshabad(M) R R District 6. Smt Mamidala Lakshmama' W/o Lqtg Chandra Reddy Housewife " il;r;;iidiG,6;d;'6;;rn hanchavat'shamshabad(lVl) R R District 7. Smt Mamidala Pushpalatha, D/o Lakshmq. E"!-dJ Horlsewife Ammapalli(V) Narkonda G ram Pancna!;i,Srffi $;ffi (O n'C tji'tl.l"t'' 8. tVl.Aniaiah, S/o Late Jangaiah, (died) per LR-P-25' Agriculture Ammapalli(V) - r.r"*6"J, cram Panchayit,shahshdbad(M) R'R District' 9. Gundala Janardhan, S/o'Late Jangla[.{qrigulture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda " d;;; %".havat,shamshabad(I/t) R R District 10.Linoam Bikshapathi, S/o Late Sama-iah Agriculture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda ' " G;";' i;;;havit,srramsnanad(M ) R' R District 1 1. Linoam Srisailam, S/o Late Samaiah- Agriculture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda '' c;;';' i;;;hivit,Snamsrrauad( M ) R'R District 12. Linqam Rama Rao, S/o Late Samaiah Agriculture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda ' - e;';' Pr;;havat,shamshabad(M) R'R District 13. Manqali Janardhan, S/o Late Mallal-al.4sligulture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda '" 6;; Pr;;hivit,snamsrraoad(rv1) R R District - l4.A.KrishnaMurthy,S/oLateA.NarayanaAgr',rcultureAmmapalli(V)Narkonda G;;; P;;"i ivit',brramsnauad(M) R R District 15.A.Vishnu tvlurthy, S/o Late A Naraaana Agriculture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda ' " cil,ii'pr""nrval,snamsnaoad( Ivl ) R' R District Gram pa nchayat,shamshabadf url Cln or.iiii"''"

16. Lingam Narasimha. S/o, Late .R.amalah Agriculture Ammapalli(V) Narkonda 1 7. Gullakadi parvathamma, . Wo. Late tVuthaiah Housewife Residino at ,f,[iyJl,:se, N a rkhod a c; n, p;"#;J,i'3 r, u,,h, oud Ma nda r, Ri nsa 'lB Gu',akadi sudha (E S.udha Rani., w/o. Late Babu Housewife Residino at A:IXirf ,tiIJl"se,-Narkn;Jaci,,p'i".hlvli,"siamsnaoaoMandar,Ra-nsi ASffi . '"

19. Gullakadi lndu priva D/o. Late Babu, Residing at Ammapalli Villaoe_ Narkhoda Gram parichayat, snamini'i#'N,,rffi'Rrng, Reddy District. - 20. Gullakadi Nandini,, D/o. Late Babu, Residing at Ammapa,i Village, Narkhoda Gram panchavat. snamshJad M;il;j. R;;sl'{}oov Districr. (petitioners 19 and 20 being minors are represented OV ff4oifr1r 2'1 Gu'akadi Raiu.. S/o Late Muthaiah, Agricurture Residing at Ammaoari Vittase, Narkhoda Gram^pailh;GI"'S;;";ItI["'o rvrrnort, Ranqa Reddv District. (petitioners I 7 to 21 are ti,,,gr,t li"'illliri? lni'ii i"#rtJa j """, 22.Mamidi Vishnu Murthv,, S/o Late Lingamaiah, Agriculture Residino at Ammapari Viraoe. Nar[hooi o rrr'Frn.r-,'#"i,'3r-.,r..r,abad Mandar, Ranoa Reddv District. -(peririoner 22, br";g;i ;;';#' as LR of deceased 3id Petitioneras per'court oroeroateil"t-b+"-zoi"ii"irvpMp.No.365B7 ot 2o11) w/o Mamidi Lakshmaiah, ased 65 years, occ : Goud, s/o.Mamidi Lakshmaiah, ased 40 years, occ " XnTliirBnarathamma, " x;#Hlr:Jldeshwar 25. Smt M.(Konda). yadamma, W/o.Anjaiah, aged 65 years, Occ : Agriculture. AND ....,PETITIONERS ( Endowments ) Departmeni, G;;L;i;i. #ia'dio. r-ryoeraoao. l The Government of Andhra pradesh. Rep by its principar secretary Revenue 2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad t ffi fiiJl"rlil,'fifi ;:ill"ioner' Endowments Department Mutti Zone-r r r, t t commissioner' Endowments Department, ritak Road, Abids, Jl3*:: frtfil fflflffl""?:[tndowments Department R.R District yadgiri 6. Sri Seetha Ramachandra_Swamy Devasthanam, Ammapalli (V) Narkhoda 7. R.Vijay Kumar Rao. Slo J.a.Sp_at Rao. Founder Trustee pocharam(V) (Gp) Shamshabaolul R rotiirilt, *'plov'tr'Irltrrrg"r. Ghatkesar(t\/) Ranga Redd"y'Dirffii. "" '""' " l?:"?:Bill Petition Under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be .....RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamusdeclaringtheactionofthe2ndrespondentinissuingRcNo M1t4S47l2OO5 dated 10-06-2009 wherein the 4th respondent ls directed to conduct an enquiry with reference to landless poor certificate issued in favour of petitioners on 13-07-2004 as bad illegal without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 82 of The A-P Chairatable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions and Endowments Act 1987 and Lease Rules issued in G'O [V'ls No 375 Revenue(Endowments-',l ) Department dated 1 1-3-2003 discriminatory and offends Article 14 and 21 0f constitution of India and to set aside the same so as to complete the process initiated under section 82 of the said act' l.A.NO:2 OF 2018 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 ordertobringtheproposed8threspondentonrecordasSthrespondentbeing successor of 7th respondent who is present Founder Family tvlember of 6th Respondent Temple in Writ Petition No.15370 of 2009' |.A.NO:3 OF 2018 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 order to amend the cause title to the effect substituting the first part of 1st Respondent in the cause title by the words "The State df Telangana", while retaining other particulars in so far as the 1st Respondent, foi better adjudication and in view of changing circumstances, pending disposal of above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI J'R'MANOHAR RAO CounselfortheRespondentNo.T:SRISUDARSHANREDDYDUDDUGUNTA The Court made the following ORDER I t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESI{ BHEEMAPAKA ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.1537O of 2OO9 Hindu Religious The case of petitioners, precisely, as per the writ aflidavit, is that they (or their forefathers) were tenants in various small extents of lands, out of Ac.222-O2 guntas of land in Survey Nos. I to 46 (except Sy.No. 19) of Ammapalli village, Shamshabad mandal, Ranga Reddy district, donated to the Endowments Department by (late) Smt. Radha Lakshmi Bai; ald the petitioners have been paying the taxes (cist) to the original owner and later to the Temple regularly. After commencement of the Telangana Charitable and Institutions and Endowments Act, 19g7 (Act 30 of 1987), the petitioners made applications under Rule 3 seeking determination as Landless Poor, whereupon their applications were adjudicated and Laadless Poor Certificates were issued vide proceedings dated l3'o7 '2oo4' Thereafter, the petitioners made . ..p.."..,tltion to the 2nd respondent on 03.O2.2OO5 requesting to alienate the subject lands at 7 5o/o of the market value. After issuance of notices by 6e respondent, and due enquiries'vide letter dated 2g-o1.200a and crarifications vide letter dated 02.03.2OOg by the 2d respondent_Commissioner of Endowments, the 5ft respondent-Assistant commissioner issued clarification justifying the proposal of alienation of the subject lands. Thereafter, one R. Vijay Kumar Rao, claiming to be a Founder Trustee Member, raised some objections through letter dated o5.os.2o0g, I I I .fftl 2 whereupon the 2"d respondent directed the 3rd respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner to conduct enquiry; and the enquiry revealed that the landless poor certihcates were issued by the Assistalt Commissioner after enquiry, however, the 3'd respondent submitted a Report dated 30.03.2009 proposed to defer the matter till disposal ol W.P.No.11812 of 2OO5 on the ground that there are interim directions of the High Court to the effect that, except in cases of public auctions, no sales of endowments lands can be done without prior permission of the High Court. The 2'd respondent, vide the impugned order dated

10.06.2009, directing deferment of sale proposals, stating irregularities have occurred in the issuance of landless poor certihcates and the certificates cannot be acted upon, and ordered re-enquiry; hence, the writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. V. Venugopala Rao, Iearned counsel for the t petitioners; and learned Government Pleader for Endowrrlents. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making submissions

3. on the lines of writ afhdavit, would submit that the 5h respondent conducted due enquiry and issued the landless poor certihcates on

13.O7.2OO4 and they attained hnality and therefore there cannot be further enquiry by the 4h respondent. It is contended that the impugned order dated 10.06 -2OO9 does not refer to any other proceedings to arrive at the conclusion that irregularities have taken 3 place in the issuance of landless poor certilicates, and further any aggrieved person may avail the statutory remedy under the Rules, and therefore the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the proposal of alienation has been deferred in view of the interim directions of the Court in W. P. No. I 18 1 2 of 20OS, and re-enquiry was ordered considering the irregularities alleged by the Founder Member of the Temple. Learned Government Pleader draws the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit fiIed by the 2"d respondent, wherein it is stated that the Founder Member has given a representation dated O5.OS.2OO8 to the 2"d respondent alleging that the petitioners are encroachers who were subsequently allowed to pay rent by the Trust Board, and that the lands are being cultivated with wet crops by drawrng water from borewell though described as dry lands, and the families are cultivating more than Ac.5-00, but applied for issuance ofl landless poor certificates by dividing the land among themselves which is evident from petitioners 2 to 4, petitioners 6 arrd,T,lO to 12 and 16, petitioners 13 to 15, who belong to same families, some of them are Government Employees earning more than Rs. 15,OOO/ - per month, and the petitioners sold away the lands to the third party under an agreement of sale or registered sale deed, for example Survel, No.39 and 4O claimed by the petitioners 14 and 1 5, and the lands are worth I I 4 Rs.60,00,0O0 f - pet acre whereas the value is shown as 3 lakhs; and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order'

5. Having considered the respective submissions, it may be noted that the very allegations in the complaint lodged by the Founder Member of the Temple are to the effect that illegalities have occurred in the issuance of landless poor certificates' The truth or otherwise of those allegations would only come out in the enquiry' and therefore' the direction of the 2'd respondent to the 4th respondent to conduct enquiry, by placing on hold the proposals of sale based on the certificates issued by the 5ft respondent, cannot be found fault with' Further, the availability of statutory remedy to a complainant does not bar the authorities to order an enquiry into the alleged irregularities' In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the *tit petition'

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismisscd' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] b-""'CC io Snf V.VENUGOPALA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] o;; aa io snt suonnsHAN REDDY DUDDUGUNTA' Advocate [oPUC] o;; aa io SRI J.R.MANoHAR RAo, Advocate [oPUC] . Two CD CoPies \q- 2 3 4 q SA GJP ,\- i-',... 18 SEP zut t HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 ORDER WP.No.15370 of 2009 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. .)b .rPC I X"<.