Dispute Over Property Registered As Endowment Land Must Be Resolved By Endowments Tribunal, Not High Court: Andhra Pradesh HC

"The remedy of the petitioner is before the Endowments Tribunal constituted under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 and this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts, which could only be gone into before Endowment Tribunal." High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a significant ruling, held that disputes concerning the ownership of land registered under the Endowments Act must be adjudicated by the specialized Endowments Tribunal rather than the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

A bench of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao observed that once a property is brought onto the register maintained under Section 43 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, any grievance regarding its inclusion or its prohibited status for registration must be addressed through the statutory remedy provided under Section 87 of the same Act.

The petitioner, P S Rao Housing and Resorts Private Ltd, purchased Ac.3.86 of land in Vizianagaram District via a registered sale deed in 2012 and subsequently developed a layout. However, when attempting to register sales to third parties in 2022, the Sub-Registrar refused the documents on the ground that the land was placed on the prohibited list under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner challenged the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments' order which rejected the application for deletion of the land from the prohibited list.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could direct the deletion of land from the prohibited list when the Endowments Department claims the property belongs to a public charitable trust. The court was also called upon to determine the appropriate forum for resolving disputed questions of title involving endowment properties.

Revenue Records and RSR Do Not Conclusively Confer Title

The Court addressed the petitioner’s primary contention that the Re-Survey Register (RSR) and revenue records indicated the land was private property rather than endowment land. The bench noted that while the petitioner relied on these records and a prior layout approval, it is a well-settled legal principle that revenue entries do not confer absolute title.

The Court emphasized that the RSR serves only as prima facie evidence and cannot override the statutory entries made in the registers maintained by the Endowments Department. The bench observed that merely mutating the name of a purchaser or a vendor in revenue records is insufficient to establish ownership when a competing claim is raised by a religious or charitable institution.

Statutory Presumption Of Genuineness In Endowments Register

The Court highlighted the significance of Section 46(3) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987). This provision mandates that all particulars entered in the register maintained under Section 43 shall be presumed genuine until the contrary is established through the appropriate legal process.

"As per Section 46(3) of the Act 30 of 1987, it shall until contrary is established that all particulars entered in the register maintained are genuine."

Remedy Under Section 87 For Aggrieved Property Owners

The bench referred to the Full Bench judgment in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016), which clarified the procedure for grievances related to prohibited property lists. The Court noted that the law requires aggrieved parties to approach the committee constituted by the government or the competent court of law for redressal.

In the context of the Endowments Act, the Court observed that Section 45 read with Section 87 provides a comprehensive mechanism for the Endowments Tribunal to decide whether a property is indeed an endowment. The bench held that the petitioner's claim of ownership in the face of the Trust's registration creates a "cloud" on the title that necessitates a trial.

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Decide Disputed Facts

The Court firmly stated that the High Court cannot delve into disputed questions of fact in a writ petition. Since the property in question had been registered under Section 43 of the Act of 1987 as belonging to the Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora Trust, the petitioner’s remedy lay exclusively before the Endowments Tribunal.

"This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts, which could only be gone into before Endowment Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987."

Final Directions And Order

Concluding the judgment, the Court found the writ petition to be without merit as the petitioner had bypassed the effective alternative remedy provided by law. The bench noted that recent Division Bench rulings in similar matters consistently held that the Endowments Tribunal is the proper forum for the deletion of entries in the property register maintained under Section 43.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 for the redressal of their grievances. No order was passed as to costs, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that the High Court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve complex title disputes where a statutory tribunal has been specifically empowered for that purpose. It underscores that entries in the Endowments Register carry a statutory weight that cannot be set aside merely on the basis of revenue record mutations.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026