WP/38643/2013 of Sri Veeranjaneya Devastanam, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024

1. P PRABHAKAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

The Court made the following Order:

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents (A) in interfering with the affairs and management of the petitioner temple and (B) action of the 3[rd]respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.A3/1522/13, dated 6.11.2013 and consequential letter dated 18.12.2013 of the 4[th] respondent (C) action of the 5[th] respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.470/2013/V&E/DEV/TAH/GNT, Dt.2.12.2013 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of provisions of the Act and Art 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same….”

2. Heard Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of Mr.P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6.

3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject endowment property originally belongs to Ranga’s Family. In the year 1905, the said Ranga’s family members installed the idol of Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy in their land at old town, Macherla, i.e. the petitioner herein. As woman members of Ranga’s family were given in the marriage to the Chandolu family, now both the Ranga’s family and Chandolu family members are called as founders family and they have been looking after controlling and managing the affairs and management of the petitioner temple by developing it including Electricity Bills, Water facility, pipeline etc by expending their family resources by way of money and time without any complaint from any quarters. He further submits that the petitioners who installed the petitioner idol endowed the subject land of Ac.11.00 referred to in the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A3/15822/13, dated 06.11.2013 of the 3[rd] respondent for the maintenance and development of the petitioner. The founder’s family including the present committee developed

the petitioner temple by raising the slab, installation of Gopuram and other developmental works with the endowed property, public offerings are bare minimum to meet even the electricity bills, or daily needs, poojaris’ are cultivating some land for their livelihood and the remaining land is on lease. He further submits that the 7[th] respondent with evil design to grab the land in Survey No.199/A and 198 of the petitioner attempted to encroach upon it where upon the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.190 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Macherla and obtained injunction. He further submits that the impugned proceedings are the reflect of mechanical exercise of power and non-application of mind as the same are passed on presumptions and assumptions and the facts do not support the same. The subject endowments property is private in nature and the respondents have neither power nor jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of the petitioner institution. He further submits that the respondents ought to have seen that the complaint of the 7[th] respondent is only to harass the petitioner’s founder family members and is due to civil litigation between the petitioner temple and the 6[th] respondent in O.S.No.196 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Macherla. The respondents ought to have seen that there was no unauthorized alienation of the endowed lands as alleged by the 7[th] respondent and as such the impugned action is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

4. This Court, vide order, dated 30.12.2013, directed Status-quo to be maintained existing as on the date.

5. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the 4[th] respondent filed counter affidavit and submits that the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 is made applicable to the institutions which are not registered under the Act. Section 1(3)(a) makes it clear that the Act applied to all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954. He further submits that as per Section 29, the Commissioner is authorized to appoint an Executive Officer to any institution having income of less than two lakh rupees per annum, if there are substantial immovable properties to the institution or if he is satisfied that such appointment is necessary in the interest of better administration of the institution. He further submits that the 4[th] respondent has caused an enquiry through the Inspector, Endowments Department, Sattenapalli and has come to the conclusion that the Management has unauthorizedly alienated an extent of Ac.11.00 cents and has acted contrary to the interest of the institution and as such, for better administration of the temple appointed the 4[th]respondent as incharge Executive Officer of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple. He further submits that one K.Mahesh Babu has also submitted a sale deed purported to have been executed by Ranga Rambabu, S/o. Panduranga Rao in favuor of Chunduru Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinna Venkata Subbaiah vide document No.1665 of 2001 alienating the property admeasuring 525 square yards of vacant site in total area of Ac.2.96 cents in D.No.199/C of Macherla Town and Mandal, Guntur district. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, on representation made by one K.Mahesh Babu, the 4[th] respondent has caused an enquiry and has come to conclusion that the Management has unauthorizedly alienated an extent of Ac.11.00 cents and acted contrary to interest of institution and as such, for better administration of the temple. However, there is no dispute that the petitioner is in management of the temple and no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order.

8. In the event of such a Trustee or other person in management failing to apply for registration of the Institution or Endowment, the Commissioner of Endowments can issue a notice to such a person to make an application in that regard under Section 44 of the Act. This provision reads as under:

Section 44. Power of Commissioner to have the institution or endowment registered :- Where any trustee or other person in-charge of the management of a charitable or religious institution or endowment fails to apply for the registration of the institution or endowment, the Commissioner, shall give notice to the trustee or the other person aforesaid to make an application in that regard within a specified period and if he fails to make such application within the period specified, the Commissioner may have the institution or endowment registered after following the prescribed procedure and recover the cost incurred for such registration from the funds of such institution or endowment.

The term “Prescribed” has been defined in Section 2 (19) to mean, the procedure prescribed by the Rules made under this Act. The Institutions and Endowments Registration Rules, 1987 have been framed, by way of G.O.Ms. No. 631, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 30.06.1989, prescribing the procedure to be followed under Section 44 of the Act. Under these Rules, the process starts with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, under Rule 4, informing the Commissioner, Endowments, the name of the Trustee or person in management, who has failed to apply for registration, as required under section 43 (1). Upon such a report being sent, the Commissioner, under Rule 5, shall issue a notice, in Form-II, prescribed under the Rules, to such person requiring the said person to file an application for registration, within the time given under the said notice. The person receiving the notice is entitled, under Rule 6, to file his objections to such a notice. In the event of objections being filed, the Commissioner, Endowments would have to consider and dispose of the objections and either drop further proceedings or direct the Assistant Commissioner to register the Institution, at the cost of the Institution. Where no objections are filed or where an application for registration is filed, the commissioner can direct the Assistant Commissioner concerned, to register the Institution, at the cost of the Institution. It may be pointed out that under Section 44 of the Act read with the Rules, it is the Commissioner, Endowments who is the authority to take all decisions in relation to registration under Section 44 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner would, if so directed by the Commissioner, only carry out the consequential action of registering the Institution.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, while setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 06.11.2013, 18.12.2013 issued by the 4[th] respondent and impugned proceeding dated 02.12.2013 issued by the 5[th] respondent.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A3/1522/13, dated 06.11.2013 and consequential letter dated 18.12.2013 issued by the 4[th] respondent and the proceedings vide Rc.No.470/2013/V&E/DEV/TAH/GNT, dated 02.12.2013 issued by the 5[th]

respondent are hereby set aside. It is left open to the 3[rd] respondent to consider any further action only after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner and all such other persons having interest in the temple, by way of personal notice and by way of publication in the newspaper. Any further decision taken by the Commissioner shall only be after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and persons having interest, as to why the temple should not be registered and what are the details or alterations to such details that need to be entered under Section 43(4) of the Act.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

BMS

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J