GORREPOTHU RAMANAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the writ appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal, preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent calls in question the order dtd. 18/10/2022 passed by the learned single judge in the aforesaid writ petition and the said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner-appellant, she belongs to a poor family and is in possession and enjoyment of the residential house situated in an extent of 200 Sq. yards at Chodavaram village and Mandal, Anakapalli District. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that in front of the house, she established a petty shop and in the backyard of the same, the petitioner and her family members are residing for the last four (4) decades. It is not in dispute that now the said structures to the extent of shop have already been demolished. It is the principle contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant that the respondent authorities can not high handedly demolish the structures in the teeth of the provisions of Sec. 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. While referring to the above said provision of law, it is submitted that, the respondent authorities are resorting to take action without adhering to the procedure contemplated in the above said provisions of law. It is also submission of the learned counsel that if the respondents are of the opinion that the writ petitioner is an encroacher, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has to submit a report to the Endowments Tribunal.

(3.) A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows in clear terms that the appellant herein categorically raised said aspect at para-6 of the writ affidavit.