APHC010425702016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 44599/2016 Between: S Vidyasagar ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Endowments Gun 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 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, order or direction preferably Writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/5627/2015, dated 26.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent recognizing the un-official respondent herein as Member belonging to Founders family of the 4th respondent as illegal … 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent temple was constructed by his great grandfather Sri Sistla Lakshmipathi Sastry of 2 Peddavaram Agraharam village and the idol was installed in the year 1913. In order to maintain the temple as well as to perform Nitya Nyvedya Deeparadhana etc., in the temple, he had donated lands to the temple by executing a registered settlement deed. As per the registered document, the maintenance and management of the temple has to be done by the family members of Sistlavaru. After demise of his father, the petitioner had maintained the temple as Founder-Hereditary Trustee being the elder member of the family during 1988 to 1996. However, the management of the temple was taken over by the Endowments Department in the year 1996-97 and due to some baseless complaint, he was removed from his trusteeship by proceedings in Rc.No.A6/6591/97, dated 03.06.1997 with a direction to hand over the charge to the Executive Officer of Vinukonda Group temples and the temple was also published under Section 6(c)(ii) and is under administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments i.e., 3rd respondent herein. It is further stated that, earlier, he filed O.A.No.461 of 2011 before the Endowments Tribunal for a declaration that he is the member of Founders family of the 4th respondent temple, while the said O.A. is pending for adjudication before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent had issued the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/5627/2015, dated 26.02.2016, recognizing the un- official respondent as Member belonging to Founders family of the 4th respondent temple under Section 15(2) and 17 of the Act 30/1987, though he has no role/right whatsoever with regard to subject temple. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petitioner, inter alia, stated that O.A.No.461 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 09.09.2019 by the Tribunal. Since no appeal preferred, the same became final. It is further stated that the 5th respondent made a representation dated 21.08.2015 to the second respondent seeking to declare him as a member belongs to founder family on the ground that his grandfather by name Sri Sistla Lakshmipathi Sastry constructed the 4th respondent temple and that he acted as founder trustee and donated landed properties for the maintenance of the temple through registered settlement deed and since then their family is managing the affairs of the temple and hence being a member of that family he has requested to recognize him as a member belongs to founder family of 4th respondent temple. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent called for the detailed report of the Inspector, Endowments Department, Narasaraopet, accordingly, he submitted a report stating that the management of the said temple has been under the hereditary trustees prior to abolition of hereditary trusteeship and it is in the family of the 5th respondent with surname “Sistlavaru” and the 5th respondent is hailed from the said founder family. 4. Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent No.s 1 to 3. 5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that the 4th respondent 4 temple was constructed by the petitioner’s great grandfather Sri Sistla Lakshmipathi Sastry, later his clansmen are maintaining and managing the temple. The petitioner, as the Founder-Hereditary Trustee, had maintained the temple during 1988 to 1996, however, the management of the temple was taken over by the Endowments Department in the year 1996-97 and due to some baseless complaint, he was removed from his trusteeship vide proceedings dated 03.06.1997. He filed O.A.No.461 of 2011 before the Endowments Tribunal for declaration that he is the member of Founders family of 4th respondent temple, while the said O.A is pending for adjudication before the tribunal, the 2nd respondent had issued the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2016, hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the O.A.No.461 of 2011 filed by the petitioner before the A.P.Endowments Tribunal seeking for his recognition as a member belongs to founder family was dismissed vide orders dated 09.09.2019. In the said O.A., the Tribunal gave a clear cut finding that all the respondents have produced evidence to prove that the petitioner had sold away the lands belonging to the subject temple to 3rd parties. The learned Government Pleader further submits that on the representation dated 21.08.2015 made by the 5th respondent and on the receipt of detailed report of the Inspector, Endowments Department, Narasaraopet, the second respondent issued the proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/5627/2015, dated 26.02.2016 and prayed to dismissed the petition. 5 7. On perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, admittedly, O.A.No.461 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Endowments Tribunal. Later the 5th respondent made a representation on 21.08.2015 to the second respondent to declare him as a member belongs to founder family. The 2nd respondent called for the detailed report and the Inspector, Endowments Department, Narasaraopet submitted a report stating that the management of the said temple has been under the hereditary trustees prior to abolition of hereditary trusteeship and it is in the family of the 5th respondent with surname “Sistlavaru” and the 5th respondent is hailed from the said founder family; subsequently, the 2nd respondent conducted an enquiry and a genealogy table of the founder’s family was also produced in the enquiry. On perusal of the same, it clearly shows that the 5th respondent herein is hailing from Sistla family. 8. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and as per the enquiry conducted by the second respondent, the family of 5th respondent was already recognized as hereditary trustees by the then Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras in the year 1937 itself. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief. Therefore, this Court found no merits in the instant writ petition and this petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 28.03.2025 sj 7 306 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.44599 of 2016 Date : 28.03.2025 sj