IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT The Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana Writ Petition No.15232 of 2001 Between: Kandamuri Sarojanamma. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The Commissioner of Endowments, Govt. of A.P., Tilak Road, Hyderabad, and 5 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana Writ Petition No.15232 of 2001 Order: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.E2/2633/99 dated 12-03-2001 of the third respondent, Rc.No.A4/684/2000, dated 21-05-2001 of the second respondent and also the notice dated 23-06-2001 of the sixth respondent, as illegal and void and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring 18 cents along with the house situated in Survey Nos.117/5 and 117/5A of Boganapadu Village, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the above said property was gifted under a registered settlement deed dated 11.12.1933 to the petitioner’s father-in-law late Sri K.Subramaniam, who in turn, gifted the same to the petitioner’s husband late Sri K.Chenchu Ramaiah and after the death of her husband and mother-in-law Smt.K.Venkamma, the petitioner had inherited the said property and has been enjoying the same. It is further stated that a suit for permanent injunction being O.S.No.457 of 1987 filed by some third parties against her father-in-law for the very same property had already ended in dismissal, but the sixth respondent has issued a notice on 23-06-2001 to vacate the said property on the premise that it belongs to the Endowments Department. Although the petitioner’s husband gave a reply stating the true facts, the sixth respondent misrepresented the case to the Endowment authorities and Revenue authorities and obtained impugned orders of the second and third respondents in ex parte. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon proceedings dated 12-03-2001 of the third respondent-District Collector, directing the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment, Ongole, to deal with the matter and safeguard the property, if it is an endowed one. The learned Counsel submitted that the property in question is the petitioner’s ancestral property and if at all there is any dispute that the said property belongs to the Endowments department, respondent No.6 has to necessarily follow the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Endowments Act’). A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the fifth respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer indicates that the property in question was settled by one Sri Gattupalli Chenchu Ramaiah in favour of the petitioner’s father-in-law by way of a registered settlement deed No.11-12-1933, whereas in paragraph 3 of the counter it is stated that Boganampadu Village is an estate village taken over by the Government in the year 1956 and as per the fair adangal prepared during the resurvey in 1953, Survey No.117 measuring Ac.0.18 cents was classified as “Satram” and not private ancestral property as stated by the petitioner. However, it is admitted that the suit in O.S.No.457 of 1987 filed by the sixth respondent-K.Viswanadham against the petitioner’s father-in-law was dismissed. Similarly, the District Revenue Officer has also filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the facts stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is stated that the property in question was registered as Endowment property in the year 1981. The sixth respondent-Sri K.Vishwanadham also filed counter-affidavit stating that the suit filed by him against the petitioner’s father-in-law was dismissed for default but not on merits and that mere dismissal of the suit does not confirm any right to the petitioner or her ancestors over the property in question. It is further stated that the said property belongs to Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Temple, which is managed by Endowments Department, and as per the directions of the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner only, he has been managing the said property. The second respondent-Assistant Commissioner also filed counter stating that as per the directions of the third respondent-District Collector vide proceedings dated 12- 03-2001, they took management of the above said property as it was included in the property register approved in 1981 as Endowment 39, dated 21-09-1981 and hence, it is an Endowment property. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner never approached the Endowments department nor made any representation in this regard and as such, he directed the sixth respondent to take over the property. It is further stated that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, she has to avail the remedy available to her under Section 87 of the Endowments Act for redressal of her grievance, and she cannot file Writ Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the above said property, but she did not choose to file any representation or objections before the Endowment authorities in this regard. Section 87 of the Endowments Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, and decide as to whether particular property is specifically endowed or not. There is no dispute about the said proposition. However, the Deputy Commissioner is also vested with the power under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, with reference to the encroachments made by persons on the properties, which have already been vested in Endowments. In this case, the petitioner is disputing the very title of the Endowment Department. Therefore, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is permitted to move an application before the Deputy Commissioner for adjudication of the issue. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to move an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such application being filed, Deputy Commissioner shall decide the same. Till then, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the land in question. No order as to costs. ________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J) 30th January, 2008 lur