1 APHC010316222011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18999/2011 Between: Bh.sreenivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION) 2. V T M PRASAD 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 4. C RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action in not handing over the 5th respondent temples to the petitioner as per new act and policy laid down by the Government is illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to handover 5th respondent temple to the petitioner after declaring the Manager of the 5th respondent temple could not have issued auction notice for the property of the 2 respondent temples and consequently set aside the notice dated 4.6.2011 with consequential effect and pass…. 2. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and leaned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the petitioner herein is archaka to the R3 temples these temples together have Rs.1,78,000/- income annually. He submits that the petitioner made representation on 5.3.2011 for handing over the temples. Instead of acting on the representation, the authorities wanted to conduct auction and in that regard a notification was issued on 4.6.2011 for auctioning the temple lands. He submits that the Manager of the temple did not conduct auction as some of the interested persons wanted this be postponed. And hence the auction for 19.6.2011 was not held but now it is proposed to be held on 11.7.2011 without issuing fresh notification. The action of the respondent in not implementing the decision of the Government to handover the temples income less than Rs 2 lakhs to the Archaka but going to ahead to conduct open auction only to deprive the petition of managing temple, is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 3 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent while reiterating the cents made in the counter affidavit, submits that the 5th respondent Devasthanam is ancient temple and said temples own an extent of Ac 107.15 cents of land and out of the said land an extent of Ac 51.07 cents is in the possession of temples, an extent of Ac 47.22 cents is in the possession of Archakas of the temples and an extent of Ac 8.36 cents is in the possession of Bhujanthri’s possession. From the above, the temple is getting income more than Rs.2,00,000/-. If the income derived from the lands which are in the possession of Archakas and Bhajanthri’s the income of the temple will be further increased. Therefore the proceedings issued under the Amendment of Endowment Act does not applicable to the subject temples since the income of the temple are more than Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. as such the petitioner’s relief is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 6. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed from the Proceedings dated 16.12.2008 in RcNoG2/48781/2008, wherein, orders were issued entrusting the Management of Institutions to Archakas under Section 15 of the Act 30/1987. In that, it is further observed that, the proposals of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Kakinada is considered carefully and the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad hereby authorize the Archakas working in the temples as shown in Annexure to look after the affairs of the institutions under the proviso to Section 15 (2) of the Act 30/1987. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada is directed to take immediate action to withdraw all such institutions 4 under the charge of the Executive Officers/managers and handover to the authorized Archakas and submit compliance report within 15 days. 7. Whereas, it is the contention of the respondents counsel that the proceedings issued under the Amendment of Endowment Act does not applicable to the subject temples since the income of the temple are more than Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. as such the petitioner’s relief is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 8. Moreover, as seen from the Review Meeting conducted by the Additional Commissioner, Endowment Department, Hyderabad at Kurnool on 21.4.2011 on implementation of Circular instructions of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad issued in DP1/52200/09, dated 23.6.2010 RcNo.DP1/4632/2011, dated 28.3.2011 Circular dated 20.09.2010 and Circular No.19 in Rc.No.DP1/52200/2009, dated 10.11.2010 and also on properties, which is filed as material papers at page No.10, wherein it is observed that, the income of the temples Sri Chennakesava Anjaneya Swamy temple, Veepanaandla (V) Midthur (M) Kurnool District, was shown as Rs.1,78,324/- The Archaka of the temple is enjoying the lands measuring an extent of Ac 47.72 cents in lieu of rendering archakatvam. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, as the petitioner made a representation with regard to handing over of the temple and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents instead of acting on the representation the authorities wanted to conduct 5 auction that too on 19.6.2011 i.e., already 13 years elapsed. At this stage, it is not possible to decide the issue and moreover both the counsels are not in a position to update the status whether the said auction was conducted or not. Therefore, finding no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if at all any cause exists with regard to the subject issue, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with law. No costs. 11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -01-2025 Gvl 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18999 of 2011 Date : .10.01.2025 Gvl