APHC010446582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1008 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-2 [3552] Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma and another ...Appellants Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellants : Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Raviteja Jammalamadaka Advocates for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Sri Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, Andhra Pradesh Region. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 27th October 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.13997 of 2025. 2. The petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada dated 13.05.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioners to declare Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma/petitioner No.1 as a member of the founder family and petitioner No.2/Gollapalli Santhosh as a member of the hereditary archaka family was rejected. 2 3. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, learned single Judge did not accept the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that under proviso to Section 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), a duty was cast upon the Commissioner of Endowments to formulate a scheme stipulating the conditions of service and payment of emoluments to archakas as also the office holders and that till such a scheme was formulated and in place, the revenues from the sale of offerings to the deity be allowed to be collected by the petitioners. 4. Learned single Judge, on an interpretation of Section 144 of the Act, held that the scheme which was envisaged in terms of the proviso to Section 144 of the Act would be applicable only to such of the petitioners as had been recognized as hereditary archakas as on the date the provisions of Section 144 of the Act came into force. It held that no such recognition was in existence in favour of the petitioners’ father as on the date of coming into force of the Act and unless the said right was established, the proviso to Section 144 of the Act would not come into operation. 5. Be that as it may, it is not denied that an Original Application bearing O.A.No.90 of 2012 is pending before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal which had earlier been filed by the petitioners’ predecessor in interest i.e., the father of the petitioners in which an interim order was passed on 01.03.2012 and the proceedings are since pending. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellants – Sri O. Manoher Reddy would submit that the observations made and the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Endowments in his order dated 13.05.2025 would come in the way of the Tribunal returning a finding in favour of the appellants in the event the Tribunal wished to declare the appellants as belonging to the founders of the temple in question. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in case this Court specifically observed that the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Endowments would in no way influence the Tribunal from coming to a finding other than the one which has been returned by the Commissioner of Endowments. 8. Be that as it may, we dispose of the present appeal with a direction that the O.A. pending before the Tribunal be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 13.05.2025. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD 4 05 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL NO: 1008 of 2025 Dt:27.10.2025 AMD