Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 13]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mohd. Rahmatullah Khan vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 March, 2020

Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                      Writ Petition No.7788 of 2020

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents, particularly 3rd respondent, in insisting the petitioner to vacate from Shop No.1 in Door No.7-184/3 situated in vacant site admeasuring 10 ½ x 25 sq. yards of Gopalapuram Village & Mandal, West Godavari District belonging to 3rd respondent Choultry, in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules framed thereunder as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction.

2. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments representing the respondents 1 & 2, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent.

3. During the course of hearing, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent would argue that the petitioner is an encroacher and therefore, 3rd respondent is contemplating to take appropriate action for eviction of the petitioner before the concerned Endowments Tribunal and therefore, liberty may be given to 3rd respondent to that effect.

2

4. Learned counsel for petitioner, while opposing the contention of 3rd respondent that the petitioner is an encroacher, would submit that the petitioner is in fact a tenant in respect of Shop No.1 and would further submit that till 3rd respondent takes due process of law, the possession of petitioner may not be disturbed.

5. In view of the above respective submissions, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to 3rd respondent to approach the concerned Endowments Tribunal seeking eviction of the petitioner. Since admittedly the petitioner is in occupation of Shop No.1, both parties may invite an order from the Tribunal as to payment of any amount for use and occupation of the Shop till disposal of O.A. proposed to be filed by 3rd respondent. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 20.03.2020 Note: Issue C.C. by 23.03.2020 (B/o) MVA