APHC010600102024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31280/2024 Between: Chilumuru Gurulinga Sastry ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the petitioner 4 months share of archakatvam and Ac.3.33 Cents of Archaka Inam lands in 5th respondent temple i.e 1/3rd share as bad illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allot the petitioner 4 months share of archakatvam and Ac.3.33 Cents of Archaka Inam lands in 5th respondent temple i.e 1/3rd share and pass…”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is the hereditary Archaka of the subject temple and the same is evident from the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.A8/4310/2021, dated 10.01.2022. A program sheet was entered for rendering the hereditary archakatvam in the temple and the same was followed. While so, Seshagiri Rao 2 months share was later deleted and only 3 shares in the Chilumuru family left over leaving major share of archakatvam to the petitioner of 4 months. Thereafter one Chilumuru Seetharavamma was introduced without any rights into the archakatvam share and the petitioner protested the same. Now the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A8/4310/2021, dated 10.01.2022 which declare the hereditary rights of the archakas. A letter was given on 02.04.1972 from the share of the Chilumuru Purushotham Gurukul by Rama Rao and another that the petitioner is the major shareholder of 4 months and they will help in the archakatvam in future. As a major shareholder, the petitioner was granted Ac.10.00 cents ie., 1/3rd share in the original land held by archakas before compromise order i.e., 30 acres in total. Thereafter, 20 acres were taken by the temple and only 10 acres were left to the archakas. The petitioner is the major shareholder and has got the 1/3 share in the total archaka inam land of Ac.10.00 cents i.e., Ac.3.33 cents. But the petitioner was only granted Ac.2.00 cents and only two months i.e., 1/5th share is given to the petitioner instead of 4 months as per program paper. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 21.03.2024 which was inturn forwarded to Respondent Nos.3 to 5 vide proceedings, dated 05.06.2024 and 11.06.2024 for taking appropriate action in the subject matter, but the respondent authorities has not consider the said representation which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner is a old aged person and if the petitioner is not allowed to render Archaktvam for 4 months period and if he was not allotted Ac.3.33 cents of Archaka Inam lands i.e., 1/3rd share, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents has submitted a copy of the proceedings issued by the Office of the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis.No.C2/13021(43)/48/2024, dated 06.01.2025. Relavant paragraph of the said proceedings read as follows:- “ In the circumstances reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur and after careful examination of the case with reference to rules the request of Sri Ch.Gurulinga Sastry, Herediatary Archaka of subject temple is rejected. Further, the individual is informed that if he has any grievance on the orders, he may approach Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act”. 6. Basing on the said proceedings, learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the petitioner can approach Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, but without availing the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition which is not maintainable. Hence, the learned Government Pleader requests to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, in the opinion of this Court as the request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities, he may approach Endowments Tribunal for redressal of his grievance if any. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the A.P.Endowments Tribunal for redressal of his grievance if any. 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 : 07.01.2025 TM HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31280/2024 Date :07.01.2025 TM