WP/12871/2007 of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Dornakal Village and Vs The Commissioner Endowments Department on 24 December 2007

O R D E R:

Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, the counsel representing petitioner, thelearned G.P.for Endowments representing R1, R2 and R3, Sri G.Elesha,representing R-4 and Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, the counsel representing R.5.

2. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, the learned counsel representing the writpetitioner had taken this Court through the affidavit filed in support of thepetition and also the counter-affidavit and would submit that in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the writ petition is to be allowed. The learned GPfor Endowments would submit that in the light of the stand taken by R4, if anyunauthorized constructions are being proceeded with by R5 within the templepremises, since it is a notified institution, the Officers concerned of theDepartment of Endowments would take appropriate action. Sri G.Elesha, thelearned counsel representing R4 had taken this court through counter-affidavit of R4 and would submit that in the light of the same, no further orderswould be passed. Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, learned counsel for R5 would submitthat R5 in fact is not proceeding with any further constructions at all andhence there is no need to pass any order whatsoever in the present writpetition.

3. Heard the counsel.

4. Counter-affidavit of R5 had been filed.

5. This court ordered notice before admission on 13.7.2007 and on17.9.2007 rule nisi was ordered.

6. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the inactionon the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking any steps to prevent the 5[th]respondent for making illegal constructions against the Agama Sastras andsentiments of the devotees of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and topass further orders.

”The former trust member of Sri Venkateswara Swamy, Dornakalvillage, Warangal District, K.Harinath Babu, filed the present writpetition. It is stated that the devotees of Dornakal village haveconstructed the temple of Sri Venkateswara Swamy in the year1957 out of their own funds and since then the devoteesthemselves maintain the temple till the temple is taken over by theEndowments Department under section 6( c)(II) of theA.P.Charitable and Hindu Religiious Institutions and EndowmentsAct, 1966. While things stood thus, the 3[rd] respondent waspleased to issue proceedings No.C/1080/89 dated 22.12.1989constitute the Trust Board for a period of three years under subsection 2 of Section 15 of the Act. After expiry of the said periodthe 3[rd] respondent was pleased to constitute 5 member TrustBoard on 22.9.1993. Thereafter, on 10.1.1990 the 3[rd] respondenthas appointed Trust Board under the Chairmanship of one SriNaga Bandi Sri Hari and an amount of Rs.1,18,000/- has beengranted by the Endowments Department for renovation of the

subject temple from the Common Good Fund Committee. Whileso, the management of the petitioner temple has made anapplication to the 3[rd] respondent to register the subject templeunder Section 43 of the Act and in pursuance of the same, on8.7.1991 the 3[rd] respondent has addressed a letter to the thenChairman of the petitioner temple to submit the relevant records forforwarding the same to the higher authorities. Accordingly, thethen Chairman of the petitioner temple has submitted relevantproposals for registration of the temple under Section 43 of theEndowments Act. On 31.7.1991 the 3[rd] respondent was pleased toforward the same to the Observer, Endowments Department,Mahabubabad Division. Accordingly, the relevant information andrecords were submitted as required by the Observer, EndowmentsDepartment, Mahabubabad. The petitioner submit that the firstrespondent again was pleased to accord sanction of an amount ofRs.1,16,800/- for reconstruction of Mandapam, construction ofGarudalayam and Garbalayam. However, due to unavoidablereasons the developmental activities could not be taken place. While things so, the 3[rd] respondent again constituted the TrustBoard to the petitioner temple vide its proceedings No.C/1438/92,dated 22.9.1993 wherein this deplonent is one of the Member ofthe Trust Board. While things so, the 5[th] respondent claiming to beManaging Committee of Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple andtrying to make constructions under the name and style ofMaheswari Seva Bhavan duly claiming that the petitioner temple is under the supervision and management of Maheswari SevaSamaj. When the managing Trust Board of the petitioner templeprevented such construction, on the ground that the construction istaken place against Agama sastras and by virtue of theconstruction of Maheswari Seva Bhavan the structures of thepetitioner temple is completely closed and sentiments of thedevotees of the petitioner temple will be in serious jeopardize. Itmay not be out of place to mention that the said construction is alsowithout permission from the 4[th] respondent gram planchayat. The5[th] respondent samajam contrary to the sentiments of the devoteesand contrary to the agama Sastras making constructions ofMaheswari Seva Bhavan. It is also stated that the 5[th] respondenthas filed the suit, O.S.No.46 of 1998 on the file of the Senior CivilJudge, Mahabubabad, against the members of the Trust Board ofthe petitioner temple for permanent injunction not to interfere intothe affairs of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Alayam at Dornakalunder the management of Maheswari Seva Samaja, Dornakalwithout impleading the Endowments Department as one of theparty defendant. The said suit was decreed exparte. In fact, thecivil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of theSection 87 of Endowments Act. However, the defendants in thesuit have preferred appeal, A.S.No.2014 of 2006 on the file of thePrl.District Judge at Warangal and the same is pending foradjudication. He further stated that under the guise of the decreepassed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, in O.S.No.46 of1998, the 5[th] respondent is making constructions of Maheswari

Seva Bhavan. In this regard the devotees of the petitioner templehave made several oral and written representations to therespondents 1 to 3 and brought to their notice that the subjectconstruction is being taken up by the 5[th] respondent againstAgamasastras. Inspite of the same, the respondents 1 to 3 havenot taken any action to prevent the 5[th] respondents for its illegalconstruction. However, the devotees have requested the 4[th]respondent as well as the District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubbadnot to permit the construction of Maheswari Seva Bhavan and it isalso without permission from the 4[th] respondent gram panchayat. Accordingly, the 4[th] respondent gram panchayat was pleased toaddress a letter to the 5[th] respondent to stop the construction ofMaheswari Seva Bhavan. Upon the representation from thedevotees the District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubabad vide itsletter dated 31.3.2006 addressed to the 4[th] respondent to conductenquiry and take necessary action. Accordingly, the 4[th]respondent has issued notice to the 5[th] respondent to stop theconstruction of the Maheswari Seva Bhavan. The petitionersubmitted that for some time the 5[th] respondent has stopped formaking construction of Maheswari Seva Bhavan. In this regard,the petitioner advised to submit that the Agama Sastras containelaborate rules as to how the temple is constructed where theprinciple diety is to be consented where the other devathas are tobe installed, where classes of worshippers are to attend and worship, etc. Therefore, contrary to the agamasastras and alsowithout their being any permission from the respondents 1 to 3making construction of Maheswari Seva Bhavan by the 5[th]respondent is highly objectionable, illegal and against thesentiments of the devotees of the petitioner temple. Therespondents 1 to 3 having failed to take any steps to prevent the 5[th]respondent for making constructions, the petitioner has no otheralternative except to approach this Hon’ble High Court by way offiling the present writ petition, if this Hon’ble court is not interferedin the subject matter the petitioner in particular and the sentimentsof the devotees of the petitioner temple in general will bejeopardize.”

7. In the counter-affidavit of R4 it is stated that “the 5[th]respondent is a society made an application on 2.2.2006 seekingpermission for construction in the open place of H.No.4-1-57situated in Dornakal village. The contents of the application are the5[th] respondent intend to construct Function Hall in the name andstyle of Venkatesh Balaji Mahesh Sadhan and requested the GramPanchayat to grant permission. In pursuance of the aboveapplication, in pursuance of the application the respondent hasissued a public notice on 2.2.2006 itself calling for the objectionsfrom the villagers with regard to seeking permission forconstruction of Function Hall by the 5[th] respondent. In the notsiceit is specified that any objections from the villagers should submit tothis respondent office within 15 days. Thereafter several

complaints had been received by the Gram Panchayat saying thatnot to grant permission to the 5[th] respondent society. In view of theabove complaints on 21.3.2006 the Gram Panchayat committeehas passed an unanimous resolution not to permit the 5[th]respondent for constructing the Function Hall in the housepremises No.4-1-57 of Dornakal Village. Further it is stated that the5[th] respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.189 of 2006 on the file ofJunior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad against the PanchayatSecretary of Dornakal village for declaration and permanentinjunction. In which I.A.No.354 of 2006 seeking for interiminjunction has been filed by the 5[th] respondent. In the above saidsuit the written statement has been filed and also counter-affidavithas been filed by this respondent denying the allegations leveledagainst this respondent. The above said proceedings are pendingfor adjudication. It is further submitted tht the respondent hasappraised the above issues to the Divisional Panchayat Officer,Mahabubabad through proceedings Rc.No.241/GPD/2006 dated14.4.2006, meanwhile some of the villagers also given a complaintagainst the 5[th] respondent society for raising the unauthorizedconstructions in the petitioner temple premises and in thecomplaint they sought a direction to stop the unauthorizedconstruction. In pursuance of the above complaints the DivisionalPanchayat Officer in proceedings Rc.No.212/2006/A1 dated31.3.2006 issued directions to this respondent calling for thedetailed remarks in this regard and also to take action against the 5[th] respondent for raising the unauthorized construction. Further it is stated that the 5[th] respondent started the unauthorizedconstruction without obtaining valid permission from thisrespondent, which is mandatory according to the lay-out andbuilding rules prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.67. In view of the abovecircumstances this respondent has instructed the 5[th] respondentnot to proceed further with regard to illegal construction. Thepresent writ petition is filed by the petitioner-temple represented bya Former Trust Board Member. It is further stated that therespondents also are initiating action against the 5[th] respondent forraising the illegal construction by the 5[th] respondent in thepremises of the temple which is under Endowments Department.”

8. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. As can beseen from the respective stands taken by the parties, there are certain factualcontroversies and it also appears that a civil proceeding is pending. However, the fact that the temple is a notified temple is not in seriouscontroversy. When that being so, respondents 1, 2 and 3 being the officers ofthe Endowments Department are bound to protect the properties of thetemple. However, it is pertinent to note the specific stand taken before thisCourt by the counsel representing R5 that R5 is not proceeding with any suchconstructions.

9. In the light of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a directionto respondents 1, 2 and 3 to look into the grievance of the petitioner inrelation to the unauthorized constructions in the temple premises, if any, and do the needful in accordance with law.

10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

24[th] December, 2007.

_________________

P.S.NARAYANA,J

PNV

Date: 24-12-2007