IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 60 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/01/2009 in WP NO : 822 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt Tirupati, Chittoor District Rep. by the Mahanth ..... APPELLANT AND 1 P. Guruswamy Reddy S/o. Srinivasulu Reddy R/o. 13-6-600/39, P.K. Lay Out, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chirtoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi-Zone-II, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 60 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by order, dated 22.01.2009 in WPMP No.1033 of 2009 in WP No.822 of 2009, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellant-1st respondent. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in dismissing his application vide order dated 18.1.2008 and in confirming the same by respondent No.3 by dismissing the appeal vide order dated 6.12.2008, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to declare the petitioner as a landless poor, is in possession of the said land and he is having right to purchase the same as provided under Section 82(2) of the Act and he is the owner of the property of an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.147/1, situated at Avilala village, Tirupathi Rural, Chittoor District by setting aside the orders of respondents No.2 and 3. Along with the writ petition, the writ petitioner filed WPMP No.1033 of 2009 seeking to suspend the operation of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent and confirming the orders issued by the 3rd respondent vide orders in Appeal No.2 of 2008, dated 6.12.2008. The learned Single Judge passed the following order: “ There shall be interim suspension as prayed for. If the petitioner is dispossessed under the impugned order, the land in question shall be restored to him forthwith, pending further orders. Notice.” Having aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent in the writ petition filed the present writ appeal. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order under appeal has been passed without assigning any reasons at the admission stage and that possession of the land was taken over by 20.1.2009 and the Mutt continues to be in possession. But, the same was disputed by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel as to the possession of the property in question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel that the order under appeal cannot be sustained and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order under appeal. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall file its counter, if any, before the learned Single Judge, within a period of one week in the above WPMP and thereafter, the matter is directed to be posted before the learned Single Judge for passing appropriate orders in the above WPMP in accordance with law. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice C.V. Nargarjuna Reddy Dated: 30.1.2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :60 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 30th January, 2009 1