Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Mangali Kondanna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 July, 2026
Date of reserved for orders : 14.07.2026
Date of pronouncement : 21.07.2026
Date of uploading : 21.07.2026
APHC010500662016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35272 of 2016
Between:
1. MANGALI KONDANNA,, S/O. LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. MANGALI NARSIMHUDU,, S/O. LATE VEERANNA, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. MANGALI SREENIVASULU,, S/O LATE VENKATARAMUDU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEART, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. BAJANTRI VENKATARAMANA,, S/O LATE KONDAPPA, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL THE
PETITIONERS THE ARE RESIDENTS OF CHINNAPASUPULA
VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIAM MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU
REVENUE DIVISIBN, JAMMALAMADUGU, Y.S.R DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHASILDAR PEDDAMUDIAM MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,
ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KADAPA, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.
6. INSPECTOR OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT, PRODDATUR, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.
7. SRI CHENNA KESHAVA SWAMY TEMPLE,
CHINNAPASUPULA VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIAM MANDAL, Y.S.R
2
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction. more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
Register under Section 43 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act; 1987 prepared by the respondent
No.6 and entering the land in an extent of Ac.6.29 cents in Sy.No.313,
Ac.4.39 cents in Sy.No317, Ac.3.21 cents in Sy.No.359 and Ac.9.68
cents in Sy.No.361 of Chinnapasupula Village, Peddamudiam Mandal,
Y.S.R District, belong to the petitioner in the said Register as without
power or authority, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the
provisions of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 and settled principles of legal position, apart
from being violative of .fundamental and Constitutional rights
guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass
such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
3. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS)
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35272 of 2016
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 6th
respondent in registering the property in an extent of Acs.6.29 cents in
Sy.No.313, Acs.4.39 cents in Sy.No.317, Acs.3.21 cents in Sy.No.359
and Acs.9.68 cents in Sy.No.361 of Chinnapasupula Village,
Peddamudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, certificate under Section
43(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions
and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 30 of
1987’), as the 6th respondent is not the authority to register the land as
endowment property.
2. The 6th respondent issued ‘certificate of registration’ as endowed
property under sub-section (6) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987,
wherein the land of the petitioners has been certified as endowed land
in the aforesaid survey numbers. Before issuing certificate under
Section 43(6) of the Act 30 of 1987, the respondents have to follow the
procedure as stipulated in sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of
1987 and the above said land was purchased by the ancestors of the
petitioners herein and since then they are in possession and enjoyment
4
of the property from the time immemorial till their demise and the
petitioners’ name was mutated in the revenue records and the certificate
of registration should be entered into the register after conducting an
enquiry under sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987.
Hence, prayed to declare the certificate issued under sub-section (6) of
Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, as illegal and arbitrary and,
consequently, prayed to delete the subject land from sub-section (6) of
Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Nallamothu Veeraiah and others Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments)
Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and
others reported in 2022 (1) ALT 229 (AP), for the proposition that under
Section 43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987 mandates an enquiry and in the
present case, as no enquiry was conducted, no notice was issued.
Hence, argued that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the
present facts of the case.
4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referring to referring to Section
43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987 has allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside
the impugned proceedings therein and directed the respondents to
5
consider any further action only after issuing necessary notices to the
petitioners and all such other persons having interest in the temple, by
way of personal notice and by way of publication in the news paper and
any further decision taken by the Commissioner shall only be after
giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and persons
having interest, as to why the temple should not be registered and what
are the details or alterations to such details that need to be entered
under Section 43(4) of the Act 30 of 1987 holding that Section 43(5) of
the Act 30 of 1987 mandates the same
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on an order dated
09.12.2013 in W.P.No.29506 of 2013, wherein a learned Single Judge
of the erstwhile High Court held that mere entry in the RSR does not
constitute evidence of title to the property and even otherwise, when the
said RSR does not show that the temple is the pattadar or inamdar.
6. Learned counsel also relied on the order of this Court in
W.P.No.23856 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021 for the very same proposition
and also argued that when the respondent authorities have issued a
certificate without conducting enquiry as contemplated under the
provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, Writ
Petition is maintainable and there is no need to approach the Tribunal
6
under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 as non-consideration of the
provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 amounts to violation of principles of
natural justice. Hence, denied the arguments of the respondents’
counsel about the maintainability of the writ petition
7. The 7th respondent – Executive Officer has filed counter affidavit
and it is asserted that the 7th respondent Temple is oldest temple
governed by the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987. Among other
properties, the 7th respondent temple is having landed property of
Acs.6.29 cents in Sy.No.313, Acs.4.39 cents in Sy.No.317, Acs.3.21
cents in Sy.No.359 and Acs.9.68 cents in Sy.No.361 of Chinnapasupula
Village, Peddamudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and the revenue
record, such as, RSR, Adangal and 1B register reflects the name of the
Manager for the time being of Sri Chenna Kesava Swamy Temple. The
pattadar passbooks and title deed produced by the petitioners are non-
est in the eye of law and they have been issued to the petitioners
without any notice to the temple at any point of time by the competent
authority and the list the properties of the 7th respondent were
communicated to the Sub-Registrar through proper channel as per
Annexure-III of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act and as such all
steps have been taken to protect the properties of the institution from
7
encroachers. If at all, the petitioners are disputing the title over the
property, the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the Tribunal
constituted under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent would submit
that the remedy of the petitioners is before the Endowment Tribunal and
relied on the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL)
No.70 of 2022 dated 29.03.2023, wherein it is held that once an entry is
made in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987,
the remedy available for the aggrieved party is to approach the A.P.
Endowments Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent also relied judgment in
W.A.Nos.888 and 899 of 2022 dated 23.09.2023, of a Division Bench of
this Court after considering Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, held that
once the property has been registered and brought on the register
maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, the writ Court
cannot direct the registration of the property in the name of the
petitioners in the light of the existence of Section 22-A of the
Registration Act and the remedy is to approach the Tribunal constituted
under the Endowments Act as per Section 87(c) of the Endowments Act
and the Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to determine whether any
8
property is an endowment, if so, whether it is a charitable endowment or
a religious endowment. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition and
to direct the writ petitioners herein to invoke the appropriate alternative
remedy available under law.
10. After considering the arguments and perusing the material
available on record and after giving anxious consideration to the
arguments that advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and
as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent, this
Court is of the view that Section 43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987 envisages
or stipulates that an enquiry has to be conducted before registering and
issuing a certificate under Section 46 of the Act 30 of 1987. The
relevant provision is hereby extracted for the benefit of proper disposal
of the writ petition.
11. The procedure to be followed for registration/publication of
institutions under the Endowments Act, 1987 can be summed up as
follows:
(A) (i) where an application is made under Section 43(4) of the
Act, 1987, the registering authority shall issue personal notice,
to such persons having interest as are within the knowledge of
the registering authority and also publish a notice in the local
9newspapers giving, all persons having interest in the institution,
an opportunity to put-forth their views and objections.
(ii) After affording an adequate opportunity to all such persons,
the registering authority shall take a decision whether the
institution has to be registered or not. If a decision is taken to
register the institution, the registering authority shall register the
same after filling in all the necessary details required under
Section 43(4) of the Act.
(B) Where the registration is carried out under Section 44 of the
Act, the following procedure shall be followed:
(i) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner either suo motu
or on such information that is given to him, shall give a report to
the Commissioner, Endowments detailing the institution that
requires to be registered and the names of the person or
persons, who have failed to approach the competent
Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Section 43 of the
Act.
(ii) Upon such information being given by the Assistant
Commissioner, or being received from any other source, the
Commissioner shall issue notices under Form-II to all persons,
who are in default, to file an application for registration within
the time given in the notice.
(iii) The Commissioner shall also issue notices to all persons
having interest in the institution either by way of personal notice
or by way of publication of the notice in the local news papers
or both, giving opportunity to such persons to put-forth their
views and objections on the aspect of registration. as well as
10the details which are to be contained under Section 43(4) of the
Act.
(iv) The Trustees, persons in management and/or the persons
having interest are entitled to file their objections in relation to
the question of whether the said Institution is liable to be
registered and/or the details that are required to be included in
the register under Section 43 of the Act. They may also place
such material as they deem necessary before the
Commissioner. After giving adequate opportunity for all such
objections to be filed, the Commissioner after considering these
objections and material submitted by the objectors and after
such enquiry as may be deemed fit, shall take a decision as to
whether the institution is to be registered or not and the details
that need to be registered under Section 43(4) of the Act.
(v) In the event of the Commissioner determining that the
institution requires to be registered, he shall issue directions to
the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to register the
institution along with the details that need to be entered in the
register under Section 43(4) of the Act.
(vi) Upon such instructions being received, Jurisdictional
Assistant Commissioner shall register the institution duly
entering of the details required under Section 43(4) of the Act.
This process shall be done at the cost of the institution.
(C) After such registration, the income of the institution is to be
assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987.
(D) Basing upon the quantum of income assessed under
Section 65 of the Act, 1987, the institution is to be published by
11the appropriate authority on the basis of the calculation done
according to the income of the institution.
12. As provided under Section 43(4) of the Act 30 of 1987, the
procedure to be followed for issuing a registration certificate is detailed
in Section 43(6).
13. Admittedly, either in the counter affidavit or the arguments
presented by the 7th respondent have not denied the petitioners’
contention that no notice was issued or any enquiry was conducted as
stipulated under Section 43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987. Section 43(5) of
the Act 30 of 1987 mandates that an enquiry be held, providing all
interested persons the opportunity to raise relevant issues before the
Assistant Commissioner. Moreover, it is admitted that the petitioners
are in the possession of the subject property as on today.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Union Of India And Another vs
W.N. Chadha reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260, analysed a detailed
discussion regarding the rule of audi alteram partem, referencing
several judgments. The relevant paragraphs are set out below:
“Only in case where a public officer has got such a power,
the question of ‘fair play in action’ will be attracted. This rule
was explained by Lord Denning M.R. in Schmidt v.
12
Secretary of State for Home Affairs 1969 (2) Chancery
Division 149, stating that “where a public officer has power
to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general
principle is that it has not to be done without his being given
an opportunity of being heard and of making
representations on his own behalf”.
15. The rule of audi alteram partem is not attracted unless the
impugned order is shown to have deprived a person of his liberty or his
property. In the present case, it has to be seen whether such
consequences have arisen from the impugned GO.
16. The above explanation is quoted in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of
India & Anr reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248.
17. The rule of audi alteram partem is a rule of justice and its
application is excluded where the rule will itself lead to injustice. In A.S.
de Smith’s Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th Ed. at page 184,
it is stated that in administrative law, a prima facie right to prior notice
and opportunity to be heard may be held to be excluded by implication
in the presence of some factors, singly or in combination with another.
Those special factors are mentioned under items (1) to (10) under the
heading “Exclusion of the audi alteram partem rule’.
13
18. Thus, there is exclusion of the application of audi alteram partem
rule to cases where nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an
opportunity to present and meet a case. This rule cannot be applied to
defeat the ends of justice or to make the law ‘lifeless, absurd, stultifying
and self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the
situation’ and this rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional
circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands.
19. The Division Bench judgments cited by the 7th respondent pertain
to the removal of land from the prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) of
the Registration Act. However, the Registration Department has
classified the property therein in the prohibited list on the ground that it
is temple land, as certified under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987. The facts
there are not similar and it is distinguishable from the present case,
which concerns the registration of land specifically under Section 43 of
Act 30 of 1987.
20. In light of the above, the respondents are directed to issue notice
to the petitioners who are affected parties who are having an interest in
the subject property before granting a registration certificate under
Section 43(6) of Act 30 of 1987. Further action of the respondents is
only after following the procedure as outlined in Section 43 of the Act 30
14
of 1987. Any further decision is taken by the Commissioner, it shall only
after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the
persons having interest as to why the property should not be treated as
endowed property.
21. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 21.07.2026
siva
15
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35272 of 2016
Date: 21.07.2021
siva
