IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7000 of 2008 Between: 1 Dantulruri Sanyasi Suryanarayana Gajapathi Raju S/o Late Narayana Raju Vuda Colony, Plot No. 231, Visakhapatnam Rep by GPA Holder/2nd petitioner. 2 Andhavarapu Govindarajulu S/o Satyanarayana R/o Plot No. 11, Visakha 'A' Colony, Srikakulam Town. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner Endowment Turnul Choultry, Near Poorna Market, Visakhapatnam 2 The Assistant Commissioner Endowment Turnul Chowltary, Near Poorna Market, Visakhapatnam 3 The Executive Officer, Sri Ranghanadha Swamy Temple, Gudilova Village, Anandapuram Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or Order more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in dispossessing the 1st petitioner herein from the land to an extent of Ac. 26.25 cents in Sy. No. 69 and to an extent of Ac. 6.70 cents in Sy. No. 70/2situated at Gudilova Village, Anandapuram Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction by directing the respondents to initiate Proceedings and conduct an enquiry under Section 87 A.P. Charitable & Hindu R.I. & Endowments Act. 1987. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the 1st petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.26.25 cents in S.No.69 and Ac.6.70 cents in S.No.70/2 situated in Gudilova village, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to initiate proceedings and conducting an enquiry under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity “the Act”). The petitioners assert that the 1st petitioner’s ancestors owned the following extents of land: Survey No. Extent of land 63/1 Ac. 3.65 cents 7 Ac.10.20 cents 69. Ac.26.35 cents 70/2 Ac. 6.70 cents _____________ Ac. 46.90 cents _____________ and they are devotees of Sri Ranganadha Swamy, and out of their devotion, they constructed a temple in the name of Sri Ranganadha Swamy in Gudilova village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and performed various kinds of poojas daily. Few years later, because of their old-age they could not continue performing poojas and handed over the temple to the Endowments Department, and thus, donated Ac.10.20 cents of land in S.No.7 out of the total extent. There is no dispute with regard to the land of an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in S.No.63/1. The remaining land of an extent of Ac.26.35 cents and Ac.6.70 cents in S.Nos.69 and 70/2 respectively are devolved upon the 1st petitioner as he is the sole successor and survivor of his family after the death of his ancestors. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that the respondents erected hoarding in the lands in question i.e. Ac.26.35 and Ac.6.70 cents and are threatening to dispossess him without conducting any enquiry under Section 87 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Inasmuch as the prayer of the writ petition itself is for the conduct of an enquiry as envisaged under Section 87 of the Act, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated that he did not give any representation to the respondents-authorities. Hence, this Court directs the petitioners to give a representation to the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments within a period of two weeks from today and on receipt of such representation, the 1st respondent shall consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ 09.04.2008 bcj