APHC010147822016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 999/2016 Between: Smt Kallakuri Surya Bhaskara Lakshmi ...PETITIONER AND State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: ORDER This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not allowing the petitioner to render services as per her rotation to lord Shiva w.e.f 1.1.2016 at Jannaveswara Swamy temple without any notice is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14, 21 of Constitution of India apart from being violative of G.O.Ms.No.1272 Revenue Endowments-I department dt 27.6.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to render services to lord Shiva at Jannveshwara Swami temple by paying Magata and Paditaram as per her share on rotation basis with all arrears w.e.f 1.1.2013 and pass…”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the grand mother of the petitioner Smt Velavelapalli Mahalaxmamma and her co-sister Smt Velavelapalli Ammanna were holding Archakatvam for workship of Lord Shiva of Jannaveshwara Swamy Temple and also enjoying the crop yield. The Commissioner vide order No.463, dated 25.12.1982 fixed the shares of Archakas of Inam land of temple. The petitioner’s family is having 1/4th share in the total land of Ac.6.00 cents ie., Ac.1.5 cents and she is entitled for 33 bags of paddy. Since then, the family members of the petitioner are rendering service to god on rotation basis for every 4th year. The petitioner completed her rotation on 31.12.2012 and handed over to the share holders. After the death of her grandmother, the mother of the petitioner Smt Chandramouli Sesha Ratnamma inherited the right of archakatvam and executed a gift settlement deed, dated 14.06.2010 in favour of the petitioner and as per the said settlement deed, she has transferred the ownership and possessory rights i.e., 1/4th share of service of the temple and Ac.1.50 cents to the petitioner. Since, then the petitioner is enjoying the same with absolute rights. The Executive Officer regularly allowed the petitioner to do the services of Archaka till 31.12.2012 and regularly getting 33 bags of paddy as maktha of her 1/4th share of land i.e, Ac.1.50 cents. While so, the Executive Officer/5th respondent herein suddenly stopped the income of Inam land ie., 33 bags of paddy from July 2013 to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents. As the petitioner’s rotation will begin from 01.01.2016, she made a representation on 28.10.2015 stating her rotation of rendering service at temple will start from 01.01.2016 and requested to allow her to render Archaka service by paying Maktha. The petitioner has approached the Executive Officer on 01.01.2016 and requested to handover the Archaka service from other share holder. But, the 5th respondent is not allowing the petitioner to render the service. The 2nd respondent also issued Memo No.L1/28350/2010, dated 19.06.2010 directing the Executive Officers not to lease out the lands which are in possession of Archakas for service Inams. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondent No.5. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the original hereditary Archaka Sri Velevallapalli Nalla Brahmaiah has another son by name Butchi Raju whose third wife is Mahalakshmamma. Mahalakshmamma has utilized the services of her brother for her share of archakatvam and the archakatvam has not been continued hereditarily thereafter. Sesharatnamma has executed a settlement deed, dated 14.06.2010 without any rights and transferred the right of the land measuring Ac.1.05 cents in favour of the petitioner, but there is no approval of the competent authority or the executive officer. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner never rendered Archakatvam through any deputy in the temple and the son of Sesharatnam wife ie.., Veera Venkata Satyanayana is rendering archakatvam. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Executive Officer never paid maktha to the petitioner and it was only the family arrangement between the petitioner and the legal heirs of Sri Velavallapalli Nalla Brahamaiah Garu which is neither recognized nor approved by the competent authority. The petitioner has to approach the Endowments Tribunal by filing proceedings under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). But, without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner vide order No.463, dated 25.12.1982 fixed the shares of Archakas of Inam land of temple and put in possession of Ac.7.33 cents of land being 1/3rd share of the total extent of Ac.22.01 cents. Relevant paragraph of the said order read as follows:- “6. That the archakas should be in possession of Ac.7.33 cents of lands being 1/3rd share of the total extent of Ac.22.01 cents. As the archakas agreed to surrender Ac.1.33 cents from their share in lieu of mesne profits, they should be put in possession of Ac.6.00 cents of land only towards their remuneration the archakas agreeing, wholly only towards their remuneration the archakas agreeing wholly and unreservedly that the title in the lands vests completely with the temple and that they are liable to be dispossessed from the lands if they do not perform the services property or otherwise violate any of the terms of this statement”. He further submits that the Executive Officer/5th respondent regularly allowed the petitioner to do the services of Archaka till 31.12.2012 and regularly getting 33 bags of paddy as maktha of her 1/4th share of land i.e, Ac.1.50 cents, but for the reasons best known to him, stopped the income of Inam land. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation on 28.10.2015, requesting to allow her to render Archaka service by paying Maktha. But, without considering the same and without assigning any reason, the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to render services at temple as per rotation w.e.f 01.01.2016, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders. 6. Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner do not have any right in the hereditary archakatvam as she has not rendered archakatvam at any point of time in the temple. Further, the Executive Officer has not paid any maktha to the petitioner as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The archakatvam share claimed from the Archaka Sri Velavallapalli Nalla Brahmaiah has come to an end after death of his 3rd wife Mahalakshmamma. He further submits that if the petitioner herein is disputing or claiming the hereditary archakatvam, the petitioner can approach the Tribunal constituted under the Endowments Act by filing appropriate proceedings under Section 87 of the Act. But, without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition which is premature. Hence, the learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the same. 7. Perused the record. 8. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is claiming hereditary archakatvam, which has to be decided by the A.P Endowments Tribunal, but not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the A.P Endowments Tribunal for redressal of her grievance. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the A.P.Endowments Tribunal for redressal of her grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 10.04.2025 TM HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO:999 of 2016 Date :10.04.2025 TM