IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15905 of 2004 Between: Sanapala Satyarao and five others. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Endowments, reptd., by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu Counsel for respondents: AGP for Endowments for R.1 & R.2. Smt. Yasoda, counsel representing the Learned Standing Counsel for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notice dated 2-7-2003 issued by respondent No.3. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2; Smt.Yasoda, counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3; and perused the record. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land comprised in Survey No.286 of Adivivaram village, Chinagadivi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioners claim that their father and his brothers jointly purchased the said land from one Sri Kalidasu Panthulu under a registered sale deed dated 13-11- 1940 and their vendors have earlier purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 30-11- 1914. The petitioners also claim that the said lands are purely private lands and do not belong to respondent No.3-Devasthanam. In this Writ Petition, they questioned notice dated 2-7-2003 issued by respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the subsisting lease in favour of the petitioners in respect of the agricultural land stood terminated by the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 and that they should hand over possession of the said land within thirty days. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Executive Officer of respondent No.3, it is asserted that the said land, along with various other lands in Survey No.286 of Adavivaram village, was an Inam land, in respect of which ryotwari pattas were granted in favour of respondent No.3 by the Assistant Settlement Officer by order dated 14-8-1996 in A.I.A.No.2/96-A under Section 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the father of petitioner No.1, Sri Sanapala Ramaiah, used to enjoy the usufruct of the trees in Ac.5.00 cents of land out of Ac.15.13 cents in Survey No.286, by paying kattubadi (cist) at Rs.1.09 ps., per annum and some other ryots used to enjoy the usufruct in the remaining land in the said Survey Number by paying cist, but the said Sanapala Ramaiah, his brothers and their successors-in-interest failed to pay cist after 1990; that respondent No.3 issued notices under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 to the mother of petitioner No.1, whose name was recorded as a tenant in the records, as she committed default in payment of cist since 1990; and that presently no lease is subsisting. At the hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.3 produced a copy of order dated 14-8-1996 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer holding that respondent No.3 is entitled to grant of ryotwari patta in respect of various extents of lands in Survey No.286 of Adavivaram village, including the Ac.5.00 cents of land, over which the petitioners are making the claim of ownership. In view of this, the whole premise on which the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition, viz., that they are the lawful owners of the property, ceases to exist. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, after perusing the said order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, fairly submitted that the petitioners may be given liberty to question the validity of the said order before an appropriate authority. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority to question the order passed in favour of respondent No.3 and/or to get their title declared in a competent Court of law. For a period of eight (8) weeks from today, status quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to possession of the said land. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:30-07-2008 MNR