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

Order Date: 01.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Calvari Temple Foundation (represented by its Secretary) and Calvari Hafeezpet, Hyderabad.
  • Respondents: State of Andhra Pradesh, Commissioner of Endowments, Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, District Collector Kurnool, Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool, Tahsildar Kurnool Rural Mandal, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple (7th respondent), Sri Vigneshwaraswamy Swamy Temple (8th respondent), Andhra Pradesh Endowment Tribunal.
  • Relief Sought: A writ of prohibition to stop the 8th respondent from proceeding with Original Application (OA) No.246/2019 before the Endowment Tribunal, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, res judicata, and that the land is private, not an endowment.
  • Background of the Disputed Property: The land in Survey No.161/A (approximately 6‑85 cents) in Rudravaram village, Kurnool District, was historically recorded in the Revenue Survey Register (RSR) and Inam registers. It was held by J. Balayya (Ryotwari patta) after a 1978 Revenue Divisional Officer order, confirmed by a High Court judgment (W.P. No.3150 of 1978). Subsequent transfers included sale to V. Naveen (2004), then to Smt. Alle Prabhavathi and Sri Alle Venkata Jaya Kumar Reddy (2010). Pinakini Power Project (P) Limited hypothecated the property; after default, the property was auctioned under the SARFAESI Act. Calvari Temple Foundation purchased the portion of 4.04½ cents on 14‑06‑2019, receiving a sale certificate and taking possession.
  • Original Application (OA) No.246/2019: Filed by the 3rd respondent (Khadarabada Vighneswara Swamy Temple) before the Endowment Tribunal, claiming the land is endowed property of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple and seeking a declaration of title.
  • Petitioners' Arguments: The tribunal lacks jurisdiction; OA is barred by res judicata; the property was lawfully acquired by the petitioners via e‑auction; the RSR entry does not establish endowment status; the dispute should be decided by the tribunal, not the High Court.
  • Respondents' Arguments: The land is listed in the register under Section 43 of the Endowment Act 30 of 1987, making it an endowment property; the tribunal has authority under Sections 45, 46(3), 47 of the Act; the OA is valid and should proceed.
  • Counsel: Petitioner's counsel – M.S.V.S. Sudha Rani; Respondents' counsel – G. Ramana Rao, GP for Revenue, GP for Endowments, among others. Learned counsel K.A. Narasimha appeared for petitioners; Government Pleader Nagaraju Nagooru for endowments.
  • Judicial Precedents Cited: T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal; Pawan Garg v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation; Raavi Satish v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Mopuri Hemavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development; State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar; Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu; Narayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer; JACKY v. TINY alias Antony.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that a writ of prohibition can be issued only when a lower court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction, ultra vires, violates natural justice, or contravenes fundamental rights. It found that the Endowment Tribunal does have jurisdiction to entertain OA No.246/2019, and the petitioners have not demonstrated that the tribunal is acting beyond its powers.
  • The principle of res judicata was deemed inapplicable because the petitioners have not produced evidence that the matter has already been finally decided by a competent authority.
  • Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as being without merit. No order as to costs is made. Any interlocutory applications, if pending, stand closed.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Property Rights