APHC010226182014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 37151/2014 Between: Karanti Poli Reddy, Prakasam Dist ...PETITIONER AND Deputy Commissioner Endowments Dept Guntur 3 Ot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V T M PRASAD 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.A5/5601/2014, dated 24.09.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as single trustee of Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Pandillapalli Village, Besthavaripet Mandal, Prakasam District….” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy temple (for short “subject temple”) was endowed with an extent of Ac.1.47 cents of land in Survey No.797, Ac.9.95 cents in Survey No.881 and Ac.2.93 cents in Survey No.892 of Pandillapalli village. The said lands are dry lands and rainfed and are not yielding any regular income. One Karnati Poli Reddy was recognized as founder of the temple and the petitioner herein is great grandson of the original founder and presently looking after the affairs of the temple. The subject temple was registered under the provisions of Act 17 of 1966 and classified as 6(c)(ii), since the income is less than two lakhs per annum. Hence, the respondents cannot appoint any Executive Officer or single trustee to the subject temple. While so, the Tahsildar, Besthavaripet Mandal visited the village and threatened to demolish the archaka quarter, which was constructed by the petitioner in Survey No.797 by spending an amount of nearly six lakhs. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23019 of 2014 and this Court granted interim stay of interference with the archaka quarter built in Survey No.797 in WPMP.No.28856 of 2014 on 12.08.2014. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Besthavaripet has instigated the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Prakasam district for petitioner’s removal from the administration of the temple. The Assistant Commissioner got a report from the Inspector of Endowments, Markapuram and written to Deputy Commissioner in Rc.No.A7/5093/2014, dated 12.09.2014 for appointment of single trustee to look after the affairs of the temple. Basing on the said report, 3 the 1st respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.A5/5601/2014, dated 24.09.2014 has appointed the 3rd respondent as single trustee to the subject temple in exercise of the powers vested with him under Section 15(2) of Act 30 of 87. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 04.12.2014, has suspended the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A5/5601/2014, dated 24.09.2014 issued by the 1st respondent and directed the respondents not to interfere into petitioner’s functioning as administrator of subject temple. 4. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that no recorded evidence is forth coming that the lands are donated to the temple by fore-fathers of the petitioner. It is further stated that since either the petitioner or his fore fathers said to have been in management are not in the habit of submitting statutory returns such as income and expenditure statements, obtaining of budget sanctions from the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole. As such, the then Assistant Commissioner might have submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur for appointment of Departmental person as Single Trustee for better administration or management of the subject temple. It is further stated that the petitioner’s forefathers have not obtained any right as hereditary trustee or as founder trustee or founder family member of the temple from the Departmental 4 competent authority. In the absence of the said orders, it is not possible to recognize the petitioner as founder family member. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 as well as Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, after the interim orders granted by this Court in W.P.No.23019 of 2014, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 08.09.2014 to appoint the petitioner as single trustee to the subject temple. After receipt of the representation, the 2nd respondent has written to 1st respondent on 12.09.2014 to appoint the 3rd respondent as single trustee. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is a malafide one, which was initiated to deprive the petitioner’s right of administration of the affairs of the temple at the instance of the Tahsildar, Besthavaripet and the political rivals in the village. He further submits that the respondents have neither issued any notice nor conducted any enquiry before passing the impugned orders dated 24.09.2014. As the petitioner is maintaining the accounts of the temple, there is no necessity for appointing a single trustee and hence, the impugned orders dated 24.09.2014 issued by 5 the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioner or his fore fathers have not submitted any statutory returns, such as income and expenditure statements, nor obtained budget sanctions from the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, recommending the appointment of Departmental person as Single Trustee for better administration and management of the subject temple. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 24.09.2014. 6 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A5/5601/2014, dated 24.09.2014 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the petitioner is directed to approach the Endowment Tribunal and file an application for declaration of the founder family member under Section 87(1)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions And Endowments Act, 1987 to continue as Single Trustee for the subject temple. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Single trustee of Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Pandillapalli Village, Besthavaripet Mandal, Prakasam district, till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Endowment Tribunal. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 28.02.2025 BMS