The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified the scope of Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, holding that a Managing Trustee of a religious institution with an annual income below Rs. 2 lakhs can exercise the powers of an Executive Officer. The judgment underscores that the proviso to Section 29 empowers trustees to initiate eviction proceedings, even in the absence of a formally appointed Executive Officer, provided the institution’s income falls below the prescribed threshold.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Shaik Masthan Vali, was running a petty fancy store in Shop No. 4, located on the premises of Sri Madamanchi Ramaswamy Trust (hereinafter "the Trust"). The Trust is a charitable institution registered under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ("the Act"). The appellant had obtained a license from the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 09.03.2013 for a period of five years, which expired in 2018. Despite the expiry, the appellant continued to occupy the shop and paid monthly rents to the Endowments Department until June 2024. Thereafter, on oral instructions from Vivek Chowdary (claiming to be the Managing Trustee), the appellant paid rents directly to him until June 2025, after which he was barred from making further payments.
Key Facts
09.03.2013: Appellant obtained a license from APSRTC for Shop No. 4, valid for five years.
2018: License expired, but appellant continued in possession.
2023: Executive Officer of the Trust issued a notice directing appellant to pay rents to the Endowments Department.
June 2024 - June 2025: Appellant paid rents to Vivek Chowdary (5th respondent) on oral instructions.
July 2025: Appellant barred from paying rent; Trust initiated eviction proceedings.
06.09.2025: Appellant submitted a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department.
27.09.2025: Managing Trustee issued a letter supporting eviction.
01.11.2025: Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, permitted the Trust to initiate eviction proceedings and directed the appellant to vacate Shop No. 4.
Procedural History
The appellant challenged the eviction proceedings through multiple legal avenues:
31.12.2025: Filed W.P. No. 31813 of 2025 before the High Court, challenging the 01.11.2025 order. The Single Judge disposed of the petition on 12.12.2025, modifying the order to grant the appellant time until 31.03.2026 to vacate the premises.
February 2026: Appellant filed Writ Appeal No. 60 of 2026 against the 12.12.2025 order. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal on 02.02.2026, granting liberty to the Trust to decide the matter afresh after serving notice and affording a personal hearing to the appellant.
03.02.2026: Managing Trustee issued a notice under Section 83(2) of the Act (as amended by Act No. 36 of 2023), calling upon the appellant to submit an explanation within 21 days or vacate the shop.
23.02.2026: Appellant submitted a reply, contesting the competency of the Managing Trustee to issue the notice and alleging harassment.
09.04.2026: Managing Trustee passed a final eviction order, directing the appellant to vacate the shop within seven days.
04.05.2026: Appellant was forcibly evicted with police assistance.
10.04.2026: Appellant filed W.P. No. 10184 of 2026, challenging the 09.04.2026 order and the 27.06.2024 proceedings withdrawing the appointment of the Executive Officer. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 16.04.2026.
Present Appeal: Appellant filed Writ Appeal No. 596 of 2026 against the 16.04.2026 order.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
Setting aside of the 09.04.2026 eviction order and the 27.06.2024 proceedings withdrawing the Executive Officer’s appointment.
Restoration of possession of Shop No. 4.
A declaration that the Managing Trustee lacked jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the Managing Trustee of a religious institution, whose annual income is below Rs. 2 lakhs, is competent to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 83(2) of the Act in the absence of a formally appointed Executive Officer, as envisaged under the proviso to Section 29 of the Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Managing Trustee (5th respondent) lacked authority to issue the eviction notice dated 03.02.2026 and the final order dated 09.04.2026, as he was not appointed in accordance with Section 17(1) of the Act.
The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, alone was vested with jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 83(2) of the Act.
The appellant was in permissive possession of the shop and was being subjected to harassment due to disputes between the Endowments Department and the Trust.
The eviction on 04.05.2026 was high-handed and conducted without following due process.
For the Respondent (6th Respondent - Trust)
The Managing Trustee, acting as the Executive Officer, was competent to initiate eviction proceedings under the proviso to Section 29 of the Act, as the Trust’s income was below Rs. 2 lakhs.
The appellant was not a lawful tenant and had no valid lease or license to occupy the shop.
The appellant was irregular in payment of rents and had paid lump-sum amounts to the Trust instead of the Endowments Department.
The eviction was conducted in accordance with law, with police assistance under Section 83(3) and (4) of the Act, after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the proviso to Section 29 of the Act, which empowers the trustee or Chairman of the Board of Trustees of an institution with an annual income between Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs to exercise the powers and perform the functions of an Executive Officer, provided they are duly authorised by the Commissioner. The Court observed:
"Therefore, the Notice dated 03.02.2026 and the Order dated 09.04.2026 pursuant thereto, is well within the powers of 6th respondent, who is managing affairs of the institution as an Executive Officer."
The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the Assistant Commissioner alone was competent to initiate eviction proceedings, noting that the appointment of the Executive Officer was withdrawn by proceedings dated 27.06.2024, and the management of the institution was entrusted to the founder’s family members. Since the Trust’s income was below Rs. 2 lakhs, the Assistant Commissioner had no role in the eviction proceedings.
The Court also addressed the validity of Section 83 of the Act, as amended by Act No. 36 of 2023, which provides for eviction of encroachers and makes encroachment a cognizable and non-bailable offence. While the validity of the amended provisions was pending adjudication, the Court held that the proviso to Section 29 was applicable in this case, and the Managing Trustee was duly authorised to act as the Executive Officer.
The Court further noted that the appellant was not regular in payment of rents and had paid lump-sum amounts to the Trust instead of the Endowments Department, indicating that the dispute was not merely about permissive possession but also about the competency of the authority initiating eviction. The Court observed:
"Appellant being a tenant and not regular in payment of rents cannot question the title of Land Lord or take advantage of any dispute stated to be between Trust and Endowments Department, much less by raising a plea of permissive possession."
The Court also relied on the Division Bench’s order dated 02.02.2026, which had directed the Trust to serve notice and afford a personal hearing to the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing, and the eviction order was passed after considering his explanation.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:
The Managing Trustee of the Trust was competent to initiate eviction proceedings under the proviso to Section 29 of the Act, as the Trust’s income was below Rs. 2 lakhs.
The eviction order dated 09.04.2026 was passed in accordance with law, after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
The appellant’s irregular payment of rents and failure to avail the personal hearing weakened his claim of permissive possession.
The observations in the judgment are confined to the disposal of the appeal and do not preclude the appellant from invoking remedies under Act No. 36 of 2023 against the 09.04.2026 order.
The Court clarified that the appellant may challenge the eviction order through the appeal mechanism under Section 83(6) of the Act, but such proceedings would be decided strictly on merits without being influenced by the observations in this judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Managing Trustees Can Act as Executive Officers
Institutions with an annual income below Rs. 2 lakhs need not appoint a formal Executive Officer. The proviso to Section 29 empowers the Managing Trustee or Chairman of the Board of Trustees to exercise the powers of an Executive Officer, including initiating eviction proceedings under Section 83(2).
Practitioners should note that the Commissioner’s authorisation is a prerequisite for the trustee to act as an Executive Officer. Ensure that the institution’s income is verified and the authorisation is documented to avoid jurisdictional challenges.
Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Due Process
Notice and opportunity of hearing are mandatory under Section 83(2) of the Act. Even if the tenant is irregular in payments, non-compliance with procedural requirements can vitiate the eviction order.
Police assistance for eviction under Section 83(3) and (4) is permissible only after strict adherence to the procedure, including issuance of notice, consideration of explanation, and passing of a reasoned order.
Tenants Cannot Exploit Disputes Between Authorities
Tenants in permissive possession cannot cloak themselves with legal rights by exploiting disputes between the Endowments Department and the Trust. The Court made it clear that irregular payment of rents and failure to comply with eviction notices weaken any claim of lawful occupation.
Landlords (including religious institutions) should maintain clear records of rent payments and follow statutory procedures to avoid prolonged litigation.
Remedy Against Eviction Orders Lies in Statutory Appeal
Aggrieved parties can challenge eviction orders under Section 83(6) of the Act by filing an appeal before the Endowments Tribunal within 15 days of the order.
The Tribunal can pass interim orders, including directing the tenant to deposit rent or other amounts as a condition for staying the eviction.
Practitioners should advise clients to exhaust this remedy before approaching constitutional courts, as writ jurisdiction may not entertain challenges where an alternative efficacious remedy is available.
