APHC010466182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS: 23611, 22223 & 22443 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 23611 OF 2025 Between: 1. SRI CHEEMALA VENKATA REDDY, S/O LATE VENKAT NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS. FOUNDER FAMILY MEMBER AND DHARMAKARTA, SRI SEETHA RAMA ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PRESENT ADDRESS VILLA NO.202, MAPLE TOWN VILLAS SUN CITY, RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500086. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, SPSR NELLORE. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI SEETHA RAMA ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2 7. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS TTD, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 8. SRIVANI TRUST, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER TTD, TIRUMALA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TTD (WORKS) TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. SRI ANKENAPALLI OBULU REDDY, S/O PEDAVENGALA REDDY, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 11. SRI SUNKU VENKATESWARLU, S/O KONDAIAH, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 12. SRI GALI NARSAPPA NAIDU, S/O RAMANAIDU, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 13. SRI BURRALA SRINIVASULU YADAV, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 14. SRI YELESAM SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O VENKU REDDY, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 15. SRI CHEEMALA VENKATA RATNA REDDY, S/O NARASIMHAREDDY, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 16. SRI PIKKILI SRINIVASULU, S/O RAMANAIAH, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 17. SRI GOTTAM NARAYANA, S/O ESWARAIAH, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3 18. SRI VEMURU SUDHAKAR, S/O SURYANARAYANA, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 19. SRI ANIKEPALLI RAGHURAMI REDDY, S/O RAMAJOGULA REDDY, MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 20. SRI CHERUKURU PERAPA NAIDU, , S/O PEDASUBBAIAH MEMBER, RENOVATION COMMITTEE, SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALAVILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. GHANTA SRIDHAR 4. NVS PRASADA VARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 22223 OF 2025 Between: 1. CHEEMALA RAMANAIAH, S/O. CHEEMALA RAGHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. CHEEMA VENKATESWARA REDDY,, S/O. CHEEMALA RAGHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION, KONARAOPET, NIMMAPALLI, RAJANNA SIRISILLA DISTRICT, TELANGANA. 3. CHIMALA NARAYANA REDDY,, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O PEDDAMACHANURU VILLAGE, MARRIPADUMANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 4 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SRI VENKATESWARA ALAYA NIRMANA SRIVANI TRUST, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. SRI SEETHA RAMA SWAMY TEMPLE COMMITTEE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, 6. SRI C VENKATA REDDY, S/O. LATE VENKAT NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. FOUNDER FAMILY MEMBER (DHARMAKARTHA) OF SRI SEETHA RAMA ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, R/O. GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. NVS PRASADA VARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 22443 OF 2025 Between: 1. CHEEMALA HAJARATH REDDY, S/O. CHEEMA CHINNA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 5 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SRI VENKATESWARA ALAYA NIRMANA SRIVANI TRUST, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 6. SRI SEETHA RAMA SWAMY TEMPLE COMMITTEE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, REP BY MR OBUL REDDY 7. SRI C VENKATA REDDY, S/O. LATE VENKAT NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FOUNDER FAMILY MEMBER(DHARMAKARTHA) OF SRI SEETHA RAMA ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, R/O. GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. NVS PRASADA VARMA The Court made the following common order: Since the issue involved in the Writ Petitions is one and the same, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the cases by way of a >Common Order?. 2. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned 6 Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel, Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel and Sri NVS Prasad Varma, learned Standing Counsel for TTD appearing for the respondents. 3. The challenge in the writ petition is against the action of the respondents in demolition and reconstruction of the subject temple, Sri Seetha Rama Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Gundemadakala Village, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, which is registered under the provisions of Section 43 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as >the Act). 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner?s grandfather had made a major contribution towards the establishment of the subject temple. Accordingly, the petitioner?s father has, during his lifetime, looked after affairs of the said temple. Seeking recognition as a founder family member of the subject temple and Dharmakartha the petitioner has also filed an application before the Endowments Tribunal in O.A.No.840 of 2022, under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.27746 of 2021, challenging the action of the respondents in demolishing the temple and sanctioning of funds in favour of private committee namely <Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Abhivrudhi Committee”. It is contended that the said writ petition in W.P.No.27746 of 2021, filed by the 7 petitioner, was dismissed on 01.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1026 of 2023, the Division Bench directed the Government to constitute a statutory renovation committee under Section 146 of the Act 30 of 1987. It is contended that, the respondents have illegally demolished the subject temple. In the said regard the petitioner made representations on 25.07.2025 and 25.08.2025, objecting to the said demolition and irregular sanction of funds and sought permission to reconstruct the temple at his own expense. 6. It is further contended that despite the fact that the temple was registered under Section 43 of the Act as >Sri Seetha Rama Anjaneya Swamy Temple? the name of the temple has been incorrectly mentioned as >Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple? instead of >Sri Seetha Rama Anjaneya Swamy Temple?. 7. Since the temple was founded by petitioners? grandfather, feeling sentimental to the same, the petitioner decided to renovate the temple at his own expense. However, the respondents are not allowing him to take up the renovation. 8. It is further contended that this Court, in its judgment, directed the respondents to constitute a Renovation Committee under Section 146 of the Act, within one month. In pursuance of the said judgment, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.260, dated 01.03.2024, constituting a 12-member Renovation Committee. However, the GO mentioned the name of the temple 8 as <Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple= instead of <Sri Seetha Rama Anjaneya Swamy Temple.= In the said connection, the petitioner addressed a letter to the authorities seeking correction of the temple's name. 9. It is contended by Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) that the constitution of the Renovation Committee is without authority of law before the subject demolition. It is reported that the building was in good condition and a structural engineer conducted a survey. The survey certified that the temple would remain structurally sound for another 10 to 14 years. Therefore, there was no reason to doubt the strength of the building. 10. The petitioner?s family, who has contributed to the development of the temple, came forward to renovate the temple with their own funds. However, his proposal was rejected and a Committee was constituted. 11. It is further contended that, without securing building permission, without calling for bids and without prior approval and sanction of the Government as required under the provisions of the Act, the subject temple has been demolished and brought to the ground. The petitioners also contend that their claim for recognition as members of the founder family of the temple is still pending before the Endowment Tribunal. 12. The respondent Nos.10, 15 to 17 and 19 & 20 filed counter affidavit stating that the Renovation Committee was constituted under Section 146 of the Act consisting of 12 persons as members; one of the members is the 9 petitioner himself. It is stated that the temple construction is under process and that the Renovation Committee has duly obtained building plan approval and further called for tenders for the construction of the temple. In such circumstances, it is contended that issuance of prior notice to the petitioner while constituting the Renovation Committee would not arise. It is further contended that the removal of the idol for keeping the same in the Balalayam was carried out after following due procedure. 13. It is further stated that the Renovation Committee has been constituted pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1026 of 2023. 14. Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10, 15 to 17 and 19, 20 has contended that the entire process of renovation of the temple is being done after following the due procedure. 15. It has been further stated on behalf of the respondents that they have no objection to the subject temple being referred to as <Sri Seetha Rama Anjaneya Swamy Temple,= and that the constitution of the committee is only a typographical mistake. 16. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 argues that entire process of renovating the subject temple has been conducted in a transparent manner with the participation of members from all the communities. 10 17. A Grama Sabha was conducted on 11.10.2021, ensuring wide consultation of the villagers in reconstruction of the subject temple. Thereafter, upon a requisition made to the TTD seeking sanction of funds for reconstruction, the TTD sanctioned an amount of Rs.1 Crore, subject to a contribution of Rs.25 lakhs by the public. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27746 of 2021. 18. Initially, although an interim stay was granted directing no alterations or construction should be made for two weeks, thereafter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and in the writ appeal, the Division Bench observed that the Renovation Committee must be constituted by including the petitioner as a member of the Committee and the reconstruction of the subject temple must be undertaken after following due procedure in a transparent manner. 19. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the hereditary trustee has been abolished and therefore the petitioner cannot claim priority in every issue relating to the temple. Since the petitioner himself is a member of the Reconstruction Committee, the writ petition filed by him is misconceived and cannot be sustained. 20. Considered the submissions. Having regard to the provisions of the Act, it is evident that the subject temple is a public place of worship, wherein all citizens have equal rights and no individual or group can claim priority over others. A writ of mandamus, to that extent, cannot be issued directing the 11 respondents to consider a particular person or group of people as exclusively eligible to undertake activities such as renovation or day-to-day administration etc., of the temple. 21. Having regard to the same, in the absence of any illegality in the constitution of the Renovation Committee, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against its formation, particularly when the Committee has been constituted pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of this Court and in accordance with the statutory provisions. 22. The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to restore the original name of the temple, i.e., <Sri Seeta Rama Anjaneya Swamy Temple.= 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 26.09.2025 BSK 12 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS: 23611, 22223 & 22443 OF 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 BSK