Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — Ss. 83 & 84 — Eviction of Encroachers — Trust Property — Tenants claiming through erstwhile trustees — Subsequent withdrawal of suits and writ petitions by the Trust — Effect — Liability for damages — Relief in equity.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Before: The Honourable Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan
Date of Decision: 17th October, 2025
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1256 of 2017
[2025:APHC:46922]

CASE TITLE

Gutti Veeranjaneyulu & Others … Appellants
Versus
A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Guntur District & Others … Respondents

Counsel:
For Appellants — V. Surya Kiran Kumar
For Respondents — Kappera Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Endowments (A.P. Region); GP for Endowments (A.P.)

HEADNOTES

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — Ss. 83 & 84 — Eviction of Encroachers — Trust Property — Tenants claiming through erstwhile trustees — Subsequent withdrawal of suits and writ petitions by the Trust — Effect — Liability for damages — Relief in equity.

Respondent-Institution filed O.A. Nos. 767, 768 & 769 of 2011 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Peddakakani, under S.83 of the Act, seeking eviction of appellants from small shop premises constructed on Trust land belonging to Nandyala Narayanamma Sri Vaishnava Ramanuja Kutam, Mangalagiri. The Tribunal held that the appellants were encroachers and directed them to vacate within one month and pay damages for use and occupation.

Held,
(i) The property was originally endowed under a registered Will dated 02-12-1958 by late Smt. Nandyala Narayanamma creating a charitable Trust, later settled by registered deed dated 29-04-2009 in favour of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri.

(ii) Subsequent suits and proceedings filed by the Trust Secretary challenging the settlement deed and Government memo for takeover were withdrawn. Consequently, the Trust’s claim against the settlement deed and Tribunal’s orders ceased to exist.

(iii) Once the lessor (Trust) relinquished or withdrew its claim, the appellants, as tenants through such lessor, could not continue to assert possession or ownership. Their occupation was therefore unauthorized.

(iv) However, considering that the appellants were small shopkeepers who had been paying rent and earning livelihood, the Court exercised equitable jurisdiction to relieve them from the liability of paying damages imposed by the Tribunal, while affirming the eviction direction.

CASE FACTS

• The properties in question were small shops on land measuring 425 sq. yards at Door No.232/2, Mangalagiri, endowed under a registered Will (No.16 of 1958) by late Smt. Nandyala Narayanamma creating the Nandyala Narayanamma Sri Vaishnava Ramanuja Kutam.

• After the death of the founder and trustees, surviving trustees executed a registered settlement deed (Doc. No.1987/2009) in favour of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri.

• The appellants were tenants under the earlier trustees. On non-payment of rent, eviction proceedings were initiated under S.83 of the Act.

• The Tribunal (order dated 21-09-2016) held the appellants to be encroachers and directed eviction and damages for occupation.

• Meanwhile, the Trust Secretary filed O.S. No.144/2010 challenging the 2009 settlement deed and W.P. No.31056/2010 against a Government memo of takeover. Both the civil suit and writ petition were later withdrawn, effectively confirming the settlement deed in favour of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple.

• Appellants filed the present CMA under S.84 of the Act, challenging the Tribunal’s orders.

HELD BY

Per Challa Gunaranjan, J. —

1. Upon withdrawal of all proceedings challenging the 2009 settlement deed, the property stood vested in Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri. The appellants’ lessor (the old Trust) no longer had any surviving claim over the property.

2. Consequently, the appellants, who claimed tenancy through such lessor, could not assert any right of possession. Their continued occupation is unauthorized and falls within the definition of “encroacher” under S.83 of the Act.

3. However, considering their bona fide occupation as small shopkeepers paying rent earlier, equity warranted exemption from payment of damages ordered by the Tribunal.

4. Tribunal’s order of eviction was upheld, but the direction regarding damages was set aside.

RESULT

• Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed in part.

• Eviction order confirmed.

• Direction for payment of damages set aside.

• Appellants granted two (2) months’ time to vacate and deliver possession of the property.

• No order as to costs.

• Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

CITATION

Gutti Veeranjaneyulu & Ors. v. A.P. Endowments Tribunal & Ors.,
C.M.A. No.1256 of 2017, decided on 17-10-2025 (A.P. High Court, per Challa Gunaranjan, J.)
2025:APHC:46922