WP/20157/2007 of Vuruma Kumara Veerabhadar aRao , Peda Veerabhadra Rao Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 27 December 2007

Conclusion

-ORDER:

Heard the Counsel.

2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 24-9-2007 and issued rule nisi on 11-12-2007.

3. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the official respondents of theEndowment Department in not taking steps for evictingthe 5[th] respondent from his illegal occupation of thecultivable agricultural land, an extent of Ac.4.00 centssituated in S.No.308 and Ac.1.00 cents situated inS.No.254/G of Bodavadamandagunta village ofParuchuru Mandal of Prakasam District which wasdonated in the name of Gods of the temples belonging tothe 4[th]respondent inspite of the petitioner’srepresentation is arbitrary, improper and illegal andconsequently directing the respondents to take steps toevict the 5[th] respondent from his illegal occupation of the 4[th] respondent Temple lands and recover the moneyearned by him from the lands since 1987 onwards andpass such other suitable orders.

4. R.4 and R.5 filed counter affidavits.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it isstated that there is a composite temple in the villageUpputur of Paruchur Mandal of Prakasam District namely,SRI AMARESWARA SWAMY, SRI VEERABHADRASWAMY & SRI PADAMBIKA DEVI temple and that it isregistered temple under the Andhra Pradesh Charitableand Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987(in short, hereinafter would be referred to as ‘the Act’ forthe purpose of convenience). It is also stated thatsometime prior to the year 1930, one of the forefathers ofthe petitioner namely Sri Vuruma Siva Sankara Raodonated Ac.4.00 of cultivable agricultural dry land to thetemple from out of the undivided joint property. It is furtherstated that prior to the year 1945, a family bearing“Pinupa” as surname, donated Ac.1.00 of cultivableagricultural dry land to the above said temple. Further it isalso stated that now, unfortunately, the above said totalAc.5.00 agricultural dry land donated to the temple is notin the possession of Andhra Pradesh EndowmentsDepartment and the said land has been under illegal and unauthorized possession of petitioner’s cousin, who toobears the same name of petitioner and who is the 5[th]respondent herein. It is also further stated that as perSection 38 of Hindu Religious Endowments Act (MadrasAct II of 1927), as amended by Act V of 1944, the thenBoard of Commissioners for Hindu ReligiousEndowments, Madras, called for and obtained registers ofAssets of all temples in the State in the year 1945 and thatthe Office of the Board of Commissioners, Madras, vide itsBoard’s Order No.3548, dt.7-11-1945, communicated theapproved Register of Assets in respect of SRIAMARESWARA SWAMY, SRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY& SRI PADAMBIKA DEVI TEMPLE, Upputur village.

6. It is also stated by the petitioner that in the ApprovedAssets Register of the said temple:Assets Register of the said temple:

(i) under item No.1, 2 & 5, in page No.4 & 5 ofthe said Approved Assets Register of thetemple, a total land of 66.99 acres is in thepossession of the Endowments Departmentand the Archakas.the said Approved Assets Register of thetemple, a total land of 66.99 acres is in thepossession of the Endowments Departmentand the Archakas.

(ii) Under item No.3 in page No.4 & 5 of the sameRegister, it was clearly recorded that SriVuruma Siva Sankara Rao donated a dryagricultural land of extent of Ac.4.00 bearingsurvey No.308 in Boadavada Mandaguntavillage, against patta No.403 in the name of theGods, in the temple, for the purpose of NityaAganda Deparadhana at the idols of the GodsRegister, it was clearly recorded that SriVuruma Siva Sankara Rao donated a dryagricultural land of extent of Ac.4.00 bearingsurvey No.308 in Boadavada Mandaguntavillage, against patta No.403 in the name of theGods, in the temple, for the purpose of NityaAganda Deparadhana at the idols of the Gods in the temple.

This land of Acs.4.00 has been under illegal andunauthorized encroachment with Sri VurumaKumara Chinna Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.VenkataRao, native of Upputur village, 5 to the respondentherein.

(iii) That under item No.4 in page No.4 and 5 ofthe same Asset Register, it was clearlyrecorded that the family bearing Surname,PINUPA, donated dry agricultural land ofextent Ac.1.00 bearing Survey No.254-2B, inBodavada Mandagunta village against pattaNo.3, in the name of the GODS in the templefor the purpose of performing USTAVAMS inthe temple.the same Asset Register, it was clearlyrecorded that the family bearing Surname,PINUPA, donated dry agricultural land ofextent Ac.1.00 bearing Survey No.254-2B, inBodavada Mandagunta village against pattaNo.3, in the name of the GODS in the templefor the purpose of performing USTAVAMS inthe temple.

This land of Ac.1.00 has been under illegal andunauthorized encroachment with the 5[th] respondentherein.

7. It is also averred by the petitioner that as per theinformation available in page No.2 of the Asset Register ofthe temple, Sri Vuruma Kuma Veerahadra Rao, the grandfather of the petitioner was the trustee of the temple from1-6-1927 who died sometime before 1930. Further it isstated that the next trustee, from about 1930, the father of the 5[th] respondent holding illegal and unauthorizedpossession of the above Acs.5.00 of temple land. It isalso averred that the subject temple was taken over by A.P. Endowments Department in about 1955 and thefather of the 5[th] respondent was continued as Trustee byperiodical extensions of his tenures, till the EndowmentsDepartment of the Government of Andhra Pradeshabolished the Trustee posts in the year 1985. It is alsofurther stated that the father of the 5[th] respondent died inMarch/April, 1987 and as such he seized to be trustee ofthe said temple right from 1985 itself i.e., two years prior tohis death. Further it is stated that it was the father of the5[th] respondent who prepared the Temple’s AssetsRegister as called for by the then Government in 1945and that he recorded in the Register in the itemspertaining to the subject lands that both Ac.4.00 andAc.1.00 were under the possession of the Trustee andthat it could have been better had he handed over theAc.5.00 of temple land to Endowments Department whenhe seized to be Trustee. Further it is stated that thedonors, understandably, gave the land not to the Trusteenor his successors nor his family members, but to thetemple, with utmost devotion and dedication towards theGods for sacred purposes like carrying out Tirunals,Kalyanams, Poojas etc., and also for proper upkeep andmaintenance of the premises and super structures of thetemple. It is also stated that the donors donate to temples

with the expectation and belief that their donations wouldproperly be utilized for the purposes of the temples so thatthey could be graced with salvation. But, unfortunately,the high value donations of petitioner’s grandfather andothers are not in the hands of the temple or EndowmentsDepartment, but are encroached, resulting in un-fulfillmentof the desires of donors and depriving the donors of theirhoped salvation.

8. It is also averred by the petitioner that the 5[th]respondent who is a native of Upputur village is inGovernment Service as Village Assistant ofSubbareddipalem, Inkollu Mandal of Prakasam District,inherited all the properties of his father, who was Trusteetill abolishment of Trustees, along with Ac.5.00 of templeland, in the year 1987 and also further averred that the 5[th]respondent ever since 1987 till now i.e., for 20 years,neither handed over the temple land to the EndowmentsDepartment, nor did he ever spent even a single rupee forany purpose in respect of the said temple. Further it isaverred that more over the 5[th] respondent has mortgagedthe said lands for his own needs.

9. It is also further averred by the petitioner that as anative of the village and as a person interested in thetemple and as a devotee carrying out Utsavams and functions, he made several oral and writtenrepresentations to the respondent- EndowmentsDepartment but in vain and that finally, on 14-3-2007, heissued a registered legal notice to the respondents No.1to 4 to take necessary steps against the 5[th] respondentand take possession of the said lands to save theproperties of the temple in order to fulfill the devoteedonors. But till this day no action has been taken by theofficial respondents in protecting the lands from the illegaloccupation of the non-official respondents and that itshows that the official respondents and the non-officialrespondent are colluded and thus the EndowmentsDepartment has failed in its statutory duty of protecting theassets of the temple. In such circumstances, the writpetitioner approached this Court praying for theappropriate reliefs specified above.

10. In the counter affidavit filed by R.4, the Manager,Endowments Department, Sri Amareswara Swamy, SriVeerabhadra Swamy and Sri Pedambika Devi temples,Paruchuru group of temples, Paruchuru, PrakasamDistrict, it is stated that it may be true that the 5[th]respondent is enjoying the land donated by his ancestors,but it is not correct to say that the concerned officials arenot taking action to evict the 5[th] respondent and also stated that the Manager of the temple had issued legalnotice dt.8-4-2007 to the 5[th] respondent directing him tohandover possession of the land in question measuringAc.4.00 in S.No.296 and Ac.1.00 in S.No.308. Further it isstated that the 3[rd] respondent directed the 4[th] respondentto take legal action against the 5[th] respondent for evictionduly consulting the Departmental Advocate and Report. Further it is averred that it is a fact that the ancestors ofthe petitioner and Pinapa varu donated the land to thetemple and that the entire land of Ac.5.00 cents is inpossession of the 5[th] respondent. It is also averred that itis a fact that the property Register was approved by thethen Hindu Religious Endowments Board of Madrasunder Section 38 of the Act. Further it is averred that themanagement of the temple was in the hands of SriVaruma Venkata Rao, the father of the 5[th] respondentand that Sri Varuma Venkata Rao, during his tenure ofoffice as Trustee, kept the land in his possession andutilized the income derived on the land to the purpose forwhich the land was donated and that after his demise, hisson, 5[th] respondent, enjoying the land without utilizing theincome to the temple, against the wishes of the donor. Further it is stated that it is true that Sri Varuma Venkata

Rao, father of the 5[th] respondent, prepared the propertyRegister and got it approved by the Hindu ReligiousEndowments Board of Madras and he himself mentionedthat the land in question was in possession of theTrustee. Sri Vuruma Venkata Rao, who managed thetemple, failed to handover the possession of the land tothe appointed Executive Officer of the temple and thatlater after his demise also his son i.e., the 5[th] respondentherein did not hand over the possession to the ExecutiveAuthorities of the temple in office and enjoying theproperty unauthorizedly. The 5[th] respondent is enjoyingthe property from 1987 and never spent any income to thetemple and he never acted as Trustee to the temple andthat he is enjoying the said lands unauthorizedly and asan encroacher without spending even a single pie to thetemple and also stated that the 5[th] respondent is workingas Village Assistant. Further it is stated that it is true thatthe petitioner has got issued a registered notice to theDepartment officials to take action to restore the land tothe temple by evicting the 5[th] respondent from the landand also stated that on the said notice action has beeninitiated by the 3[rd] respondent and issued directions on12-6-2007 to the present Manager of the temple to take legal action against the 5[th] respondent and a legal noticehas been already issued by the Manager to the 5[th]respondent. Further it is stated that the Manager haswritten a letter dt.21-9-2007 to the AssistantCommissioner, Endowments, seeking further directions inthe matter and informed that he had taken charge only on8-8-2007. Further it is stated that action will be takenpromptly under Section 83 of the Act 30/87 for evicting therespondent No.5, from the temple lands and lease out thelands in public auction at an earliest.

11. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent, itis stated that the subject matter lands of this Writ Petitionare their personal and ancestral properties in which thewrit petitioner demands a share to him though he isotherwise entitled to and that the petitioner tried his levelbest in the village to knock away the said lands byattempting to forcibly trespass into the lands and that thisrespondent resisted the same and the villagers alsochastised and warned the petitioner not to create suchsenses and also stated that all the while he was in serviceelsewhere and in the recent times after his retirement, hecame back to the village and started such mischievousand greedy acts. Further it is stated that when thepetitioner failed in his attempts to grab his lands, he resorted to mud-slinging activity against him and alsofurther stated that as a part of it, in the newspapers, hestarted giving false statements that he had been illegallysquatting on the lands by falsely stating that the lands areEndowment lands and for that purpose, he has beengiving distorted versions to the Media and also to theEndowments Department. Further it is stated that theEndowments Department also found that there is no truthor strength in the allegations of the petitioner and hencedid not find it necessary to initiate any proceedingsagainst him since those lands are his personal lands andthat the petitioner had been giving paper statementspersistently throwing mud against him and defaming hisfamily. It is also stated that it is absolutely false to statethat he is in illegal encroachment and enjoyment of thelands allegedly donated by the ancestors of the petitionerand also stated that the allegations in para 3 of the writaffidavit are totally false and are invented for the purposeof this Writ Petition. It is further averred that it is false toallege that some time prior to 1930 one of the forefathersof the petitioner by name Vuruma Siva Sankara Raodonated 4 acres of cultivable land from out of the jointfamily property and also stated that it is false to allegedthat the said 4 acres of land is in his unauthorizedpossession. Further it is stated that the said Siva Sankara

Rao is the younger brother of his grandfather VurumaKumara Veerabhadra Rao and both of them are the sonsof Narayanappa and the said extent of 4 acres of land inSy.No.308 of Bodavadamandagunta village was the jointfamily property and that the said Narayanappa has twosons Veerabhadra Rao and Sivasankara Rao and thefamily of Narayanappa has got substantial property in thevillage. It is also stated that after the death ofNarayanappa, his son, the said Kumara VeerabhadraRao and Sivasankara Rao continued to be joint withouteffecting any partition and that the said KumaraVeerabhadra Rao is his paternal grandfather who diedprior to 1920. Further, the said Kumara Veerabhadra Raoand Siva Sankara Rao also died without dividing the jointfamily properties. It is also stated by the 5[th] respondentthat thereafter, their respective sons viz., his fatherVenkata Rao, his brother Narayanappa representingKumara Veerabhadra Rao branch, and the son ofSivasankara Rao by name Chandra Mouli, orally effectedpartition of the joint family properties during the year 1941and that in the said partition, the said 4 acres of land inSy.No.308 fell to the share of his father Venkata Rao andthus the said land is also his ancestral property and thatall the revenue records also show the same. Further it is stated by the 5[th] respondent that it appears the saidSivasankara Rao when he was joint with his grandfatherKumara Veerabhadra Rao, made an oral arrangementdirecting their joint family members to supply edible oil forthe purpose of Akhanda Deeparadhana to the subjectmatter temple from out of the income derived from the said4 acres of land covered by Sy.No.308 and that as statedby the writ petitioner himself, by that time, all the propertieswere joint and undivided and as such, the saidSivasankara Rao was not competent to alienate any jointfamily property. In any case, the said Sivasankara Raodid not execute any deed of conveyance in favour of thesaid Devasthanam at any time, much less, any gift deedand that he was a mom of religious inclinations and usedto spend all his time for religious rituals and also statedthat due to that he directed his family members tocontinue to supply edible oil for Akhanda Deeparadhanain the said temple as a family tradition. It is also statedthat the entries in Section 38 Register, vide Board OrderNo.3548/45 dated 7-11-1945 relied upon by the writpetitioner also does not show that any conveyance deedwas made by the said Sivasankara Rao and that it ispertinent to note that so far as the other item of Ac.1.00cents of land covered by Sy.No.254/2B is concerned, in the same Register it was stated that that the said Pinupapeople conveyed the same by way of a gift deed and thatthe land was in the possession of the Trustees and furtherit is stated that whereas in the same Register, the entryrelating to their lands, there is no mention of anyconveyance deed conveying the said land toDevasthanam. Further more, it was also stated that theland was still in the possession of the family ofSivasankara Rao. Further it is stated that it appears bythat time the said Sivasankara Rao, because of hisreligious attitude, made an oral arrangement directing theirfamily to supply edible oil out of the income derived fromthe said land, without alienating the same to theDevasthanam. Accordingly, their family made it as atradition to use part of the income derived from the saidland, to supply edible oil to the Devasthanam for AkhandaDeeparadhana and that this tradition came to settle withtheir branch since his father was the eldest of his brothersand thus, it cannot be stated that this land was conveyedor in any way belongs to the Devasthanams. Further it isstated that it is true that the grandfather of both of themalso acted as a Trustee vide the orders of theEndowments Board as stated in the said Register andthereafter, his father Venkata Rao became the Trustee bythe date of the said Board order dated 7-11-1945 and that

he acted as such as its hereditary trustee till he died in1987 and that during his life time and after him, he hadbeen supplying the oil to the temple, presently at the rateof 36 Kgs., per annum in accordance with their familytradition. Further it is also stated that since his fatheracted as hereditary trustee for about five decades, he alsosupplied oil and also used to meet the expenditure for theperformance of the annual functions of the temple with theincome derived from the 1 acre of land in Sy.No.254/2Bconveyed by Pinupa people having been in possession ofthe same. Thus, only the said one acre of land situated inSy.No.254/2B is the land of the temple, the income ofwhich they have been using for the purpose of annualfunctions without taking a single pie out of it for them. It isalso averred that he had absolutely no objection to setapart the said one acre of land in Sy.No.254/2B if a legal,capable and efficient Board is constituted who can meetthe expenditure of performing the annual functions of thetemple and that for all these years, he spent all the incomederived from the 1 acre of land in Sy.No.254/2B to thetemple as its hereditary trustee. Further it is averred thathe is the only to his father Venkata Rao and that theyeffected an oral partition of theirancestral properties andsubsequently during 1984 prepared a list of partition recording the earlier oral partition under which the said 4acres of land along with the remaining land in the samesurvey number belonging to their family, which came to atotal of Ac.5-22 cents which in the revenue recordsmeasured as Ac.5-06 cents, was partitioned amongstboth of them equally. The said memo of past partition wasvery much signed by the writ petitioner as a witness to iton 1-1-1984 and as such, now the writ petitioner cannotsay otherwise. Subsequently, his father executed aregistered will dated 30-5-1985 in which his share in thesaid Ac5-22 cents of the land was also bequeathed to himand he was directed to give 3 kgs., of oil per month totally36 kgs per annum to the respective Archakas of thetemple out of the income derived from the said land. Subsequently, his father executed another unregisteredwill canceling this particular will in which the same bequestand arrangement were reiterated as in the earlierregistered will. These documents clearly show that thesaid land of 4 acres is not Devasthanam land. It is furtherstated that so far as the 4 acres of land in Sy.No.308 isconcerned, it does not belong to the temple and it is hisabsolute property. Several other averments also hadbeen made in the counter affidavit.

12. As can be seen from the respective stands taken bythe parties, there appears to be some controversy relating to the actual extent of the land owned by the Institution inpursuance of the donation and the rest of the extent of theland and also there appears to be some controversywhether the rest of the extent of land in fact belongs to theInstitution or not. This Court is not inclined to express anyopinion relating to the said aspect in the light of the factualcontroversy put forth by the parties before this Court. Itappears to be a dispute between the petitioner and the 5[th]respondent predominantly. However, the 4[th] respondenthad taken a specific stand that the total subject matter ofthe Writ Petition had been donated to the Institution andthe Institution is the owner of the total extent of theproperty – the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. In the light of the stands taken, especially the stand takenby the writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of theWrit Petition, the stand taken by the 4[th] respondent andalso the stand taken by the 5[th] respondent, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that it would be just and proper todirect the Assistant Commissioner, EndowmentsDepartment, Ongole, Prakasam District – 3[rd] respondentto look into the respective grievances put forth by thepetitioner and the 4[th] respondent and the 5[th] respondentand take appropriate decision in this regard. It is needless

to say that the contesting parties are at liberty to produceall the material available before the 3[rd] respondent and let the 3[rd] respondent take appropriate decision in thisregard, within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the 3[rd]respondent being satisfied that the properties belong tothe Endowments Department, further steps in accordancewith law to be taken.

13. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Noorder as to costs.

_________________

Justice P.S.Narayana

27[th] December, 2007

smr