Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 06 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Sri Avadutendra Gnana Mandir, represented by its President S.V. Ramana, filed W.P. No.6157 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments‑I) Department; (2) Commissioner of Endowments; (3) Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa; (4) Yadalla Pitchaiah Chetty Charities Association, Kadapa, represented by Founder‑Family Member & Secretary Dr. Jwala Chaitanya.
  • The petition sought a writ of mandamus to declare illegal and ultra‑vires the order of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal (Amaravati) dated 21‑01‑2026 (O.A. No.517/2018) which permitted withdrawal of an eviction application and the subsequent notice issued under Sec. 83(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (as amended by Act 36 of 2023) dated 31‑01‑2026.
  • Background: The 3rd and 4th respondents filed O.A. No.517 of 2018 seeking eviction of the petitioner from vacant possession of property (Sy. Nos. 5 & 6‑1A, 0.11 cents, Nagarajupalli Village, Kadapa Mandal). While the application was pending, they filed I.A. No.912 of 2025 for withdrawal, which the Endowments Tribunal allowed on 21‑01‑2026, dismissing the O.A. as withdrawn and granting liberty to proceed under law.
  • After withdrawal, the 4th respondent issued a notice under Sec. 83(2) (as amended) demanding explanation or vacating the premises. The petitioner challenged the notice on two grounds: (i) the amendment does not have retrospective effect; (ii) a founder‑family member lacks jurisdiction to issue the notice.
  • Respondents counter‑argued that the institution is an exempted one (G.O. No. 1098 dated 11‑09‑2008 and G.O. No. 306 dated 05‑11‑2021) allowing the trustee or any person in management to discharge the functions of Executive Officer, including issuance of notices under Sec. 83(2). They cited the proviso to Sec. 29 of the Endowments Act and G.O. No. 888 defining Executive Authority.
  • Respondents also contended that the amendment of 2023 replaced Sections 84‑86, rendering the earlier proceedings under the repealed provisions void, and that the withdrawal of O.A. 517/2018 was proper, permitting the use of the new provisions.
  • The petitioner's counsel relied on Supreme Court judgment in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co. (2001 8 SCC 397) and Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Sri Satya Pramod's Teertha Swamuluvaru v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (AIR 1971 A.P. 371) to argue that repealed statutes cannot affect vested rights and that the amendment is not retrospective.
  • The court examined CPC Order XXIII Rule 1(3) on withdrawal of suits, and relevant Supreme Court decisions (K.S. Bhoopathy v. Kokila, 2000 5 SCC 458; R. Rthianavel Chettiar v. V.V. Sivaramman, 1999 4 SCC 89) regarding the effect of withdrawal on vested rights.
  • The court noted that the institution’s annual income (≈ Rs 22 lakhs) falls within the Rs 2‑25 lakhs band, invoking the proviso to Sec. 29 which authorises the Commissioner to appoint a person (the founder‑family member) to discharge Executive Officer duties.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition was held to be without merit and dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • Any interlocutory applications pending were ordered to stand closed.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Endowments Act