APHC010529072017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16774/2017 Between: Donthikurthi Venkata Satyanarayana Sarma, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DWARAMPUDI SAVITHRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (TG) 2. KANDA SRINIVASU SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (KS AND WG) 3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to a Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.A1/2520/2017, Dt.28-04-2017 in directing the Assistant Commissioner and the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent temple to take over the complete charge of the temple Sri Annapoorna 2 Visweswara Swamy Temple, Appanapalli, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District, in pursuance of the proceedings D.Dis.No.B1/37498/1991, Dt.24-09-1992 after lapse of 25 years without obtaining directions from the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.B1/37498/1991, Dt.24-09-1992….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner temple is an old temple, which has been in existence for over 400 years. At present, the petitioner and his brothers are continuing to perform Archakatvam in the said temple. The 2nd petitioner (for short “subject temple”) having Ac.7.58 cents of land in Survey No.40/3, Ac.1.33 cents submerged in Godavari river, Ac.2.14 cents in Survey No.177/1 and Ac.4.31 cents in Survey No.197 in Appanapalli village. The said lands are dry lands. The Government passed G.O.Ms.No.2496, Education and Endowments, dated 07.12.1956 approving the compromise terms between the trustees and Archakas. In terms of the said G.O., the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur has passed an order on 24.12.1956 after hearing Archakas and the trustees, directing that the Archakas should pay all the arrears of contribution and audit fees forthwith and the archakas will be allowed to continue in possession of all the temple lands rendering service and will meet Paditaram, Panchakam, Paricharikam and Kalyanam and other Utchavams. While so, an order was passed for adoption of subject temple vide D.Dis.No.B1/37498/91, dated 24.09.1992 3 giving a direction to the 4th respondent to take complete charge of the subject temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s father filed W.P.No.13038 of 1992 questioning the said proceedings and W.P.No.28440 of 1997 questioning the appointment of trustees. However, the said writ petitions were dismissed on 04.03.2004, since the father of the petitioner has passed away. While things stood thus, on 28.04.2017, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/2520/2017, dated 28.04.2017 directing the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent to take charge of the management from the present person immediately in the presence of Inspector, Endowments Department, Amalapuram. The notice was served on 30.04.2017 at 02:00 P.M., and obtained a letter from the petitioner and his brothers, as if all the articles both movable and immovable including silver and gold was handed over to the 4th respondent, and also obtained promise that the silver and gold will be delivered within two days after verifying them. After the lapse of 25 years, the 2nd respondent without giving any notice or without referring to earlier proceedings issued the impugned proceedings dated 28.04.2017 to take complete charge of the subject temple. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the subject temple is registered under Section 38 of the Act 17/66 vide proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, 4 Endowments Department vide Rc.No.32/4762/1974, dated 13.03.1974 under registration No.105 and hence, the temple is a public charitable institution. It is further stated that, as per Section 145 of Act 30/87, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings dated 24.09.1992 adopting the subject temple to the 4th respondent-temple. Challenging the same, the petitioner’s father filed W.P.No.13038 of 1992 and thereafter filed W.P.No.28440 of 1997 challenging the appointment of trustees to the said temple and both the writ petitions were dismissed as abated on 04.03.2004. After dismissal of the writ petitions, the orders of adoption dated 24.09.1992 became final and the same are binding on the petitioners, as all these days the petitioners were enjoying the landed properties of the temple and not submitting any accounts to the Endowments Department. Hence, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 28.04.2017 directing the 4th respondent to take charge of the temple. Thereafter, the subject temple was taken over under panchanama on 30.04.2017 from the petitioners herein. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Ms.D.Savithri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr.Kanda Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the proceedings of the 2nd 5 respondent dated 24.09.1992 are not in terms of section 145 and the subject temple has not been listed under Section 6 of the Act 17 of 1966 or Act 30/87. He further submits that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction under Section 11 and no Executive officer can be appointed under Section 29 and by virtue of proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the subject temple was brought under jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner and under the control and management of the Executive Officer. The 3rd respondent has not given any reasons as to why the 2nd respondent is implementing the proceedings of the year 1992 in the year 2017. He further submits that, Section 145 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 was amended with effect from 03.01.2008 and the respondents has to satisfy the conditions for any such adoption or amalgamation shall be as may be prescribed before proceeding further. He further submits that the respondents cannot proceed further in implementing the proceedings dated 24.09.1992 after a lapse of 25 years and the Department has to issue fresh proceedings in terms of the amendment. He further submits that the income from the lands belonging to the subject temple to the obligation of maintaining the temple and attending the various duties and taking over the temple, which implies taking over the lands, violates our constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6 6. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, as per Section 145 of Act 30/87, any institution can be adopted as per the proceedings of the Commissioner irrespective of its category. He further submits that, once proceedings are issued for adopting and the concerned section was not amended or set-aside, the proceedings stands good unless the same are revoked by the competent authority. He further submits that the subject temple was adopted long back and under the administrative control of the Endowments Department, the petitioner is only managing the temple and now when the management is being sought to be done by the Executive Officer, the petitioners being the archakas have no locus standi to challenge the action of the authorities. He further submits that once the temple is adopted and the same is holding the field, the petitioners have no right to hold the temple and its properties and hence, taking over the temple as per the directions dated 28.04.2017 is valid and legal. He further submits that, the subject temple has issued auction notification dated 06.05.2017, challenging the same the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.16933 of 2017 and this Court granted interim order, directing that the auction may go on and not to finalize the same. The auction was held on 15.05.2017 for entire extent of Ac.4.31 cents and the temple premises Ac.2.14 cents and 11 vacant sites each measuring 3.5 sq.yards. The auction was conducted successfully and the total amount fetched in the auction for the lands and the vacant sites is Rs.4,45,120/- per 7 annum. The 4th respondent-temple is proposing to grant salaries to the archakas and also to give paditharam expenses for daily dhoopa, dheepa, naivedyam as per the directions of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings RC.No.A1/2520/2017, dated 31.05.2017. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/2520/2017, dated 28.04.2017 directing the Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer of 4th respondent temple to take complete charge of the subject temple with the following observations: “In the reference 1st cited, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., was pleased to give adoption of Sri Annapoorna Visweswara Swamy Temple, Appanapalli (V), Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godaviri District to Sri Bala Balaji Swamy Temple, Appanapalli, Mamidikuduru Mandal, E.G. District. Against the said orders, the archaka of the temple has filed W.P.No.13038/1992 in his individual capacity against the adoption of the subject temple and also filed W.P.No.28440/1997 in the capacity of the archaka of the subject temple against the said adoption. On 04-03-2004 the Hon’ble High Court pleased to dismiss both the Writ Petitions. Subsequently, no others have challenged the Commissioners adoption orders. Sri Annapurna Visweswara Swamy Temple has vast properties and all are under encroachment. The present management did not take any action and supporting the encroachers indirectly. There is every need to check the management and encroachments.” 8 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, it appears that, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 24.09.1992, adopting the subject temple to 4th respondent-temple. Challenging the same, the petitioner’s father filed writ petitions and the same were dismissed by this Court. After dismissal of the writ petitions, the adoption orders dated 24.09.1992 became final. As the petitioners were enjoying the endowment property, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 28.04.2017, directing the 4th respondent to take charge of the subject temple. Subsequently, the temple was taken over under panchanama on 30.04.2017 from the petitioners herein. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, there are no grounds to interfere in this matter and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 07.02.2025 BMS