IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 21649 of 2007 Between: Dasari Sanyasi Naidu, S/o. Late Adinarayana, R/o.Door No.8-25 Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle Post Visakhapatnam District. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Turners Choultry, Visakhapatnam 2 Sri Bhamidipativari Satram, Rep.by its Chairman, Chodavaram Post, Visakhapatnam District 3 Sri Bhamidipativari Satram, Rep. by its Manager, Chodavaram Post, Visakhapatnam District ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the notice in O.A.No.51/2007.B2/JDL, dt.22-9- 2007 of the 1st respondent issued under Section 83(2) of Act 30 of 1987 treating the petitioner as an Encroacher of land measuring Ac.7.73 cents in Survey No. 4-A to C of Chittayapalem village, Butchayapeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District when said land is subject matter of declaratory suit and permanent injunction in O.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Chodavaram against respondents 2 and 3 herein as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Upender representing Sri E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3: Sri V.T.M.Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 11.10.2007 and granted interim suspension for a limited period, which had been extended for a further limited period. 2. Counter affidavit of first respondent had been filed. 3. The second and third respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.359 of 2008 to vacate the interim order. 4. Heard Sri Upendra representing Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No.1 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad for respondents 2 and 3. 5. Counsel for the writ petitioner had placed strong reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jaggayya vs. Diety of Seetharamaswamy Varu[1] and would maintain that in the light of the same, the relief prayed for in the writ petition to be granted. 6. On the contrary, learned Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that if such relief is granted, the institution would be put to serious loss and however, the proceedings now being taken under the provisions of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (“the Act”) would be subject to the final result of the suit. 7. Heard the counsel. 8. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the counter affidavits and also the reply affidavit as well. 9. The writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the notice in O.A.No.51/2007.B2/Jdl, dt.22.9.2007 of the 1st respondent issued under Section 83(2) of Act 30 of 1987 treating the petitioner as an encroacher of land measuring Ac.7.73 cents in Survey No. 4-A to C of Chittayapalem village, Butchayapeta Mandal, Visakhaptanam District when the said land is subject matter of declaratory suit and permanent injunction in O.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram against Respondents 2 and 3 herein as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other orders. 10. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and counter affidavits in detail had been filed by the first respondent and also the second and third respondents, as well. 11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner had also participated in the auction. The fact that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram filed by the writ petitioner is pending disposal, is not in serious dispute. 12. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments, no doubt, had drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made in paras 12, 13 and 14 of the decision of the Division Bench in Jaggayya v. Diety of Seetharamaswamy Varu (1 supra). 13. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits of the matter, for the reason that it is stated that a civil suit already had been filed and the same is pending in O.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments had placed strong reliance on Section 151 of the Act. It is needless to say that inasmuch as it is stated that a civil suit already had been instituted in O.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram and the same is pending disposal, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application in this regard, if the writ petitioner is so advised. 14. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 19-02-2008 RAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Turners Choultry, Visakhapatnam 2 The Chairman, Bhamidipativari Satram, Chodavaram Post, Visakhapatnam District 3 The Manager, Sri Bhamidipativari Satram, Chodavaram Post, Visakhapatnam District 4. 2 CCs to G.P for Endowments (OUT) 5. 2CD copies THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 21649 of 2007 DATED : 19-02-2008 [1] 1987(1) ALT 18