WP/15368/2010 of Vaddrevu Sundar Ratnakar Rao Vs The Commissioner of Endowments, on 31 December 2024

1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.1 to 3AND

1. Vaddrevu Sundar Ratnakar Rao,S/o.V.V. Sundara Rao, Aged 378Years, R/o.1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam, Ramachandrapuram,[E.G.]District.Years, R/o.1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam, Ramachandrapuram,[E.G.]District.

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Vari Temple, Draksharamam,Ramachandrapuram, represented by its Executive Officer.Ramachandrapuram, represented by its Executive Officer.

3. S.R.K. Rajagopal Narasaraju, S/o.late S.R.K. Ramachandra RajuR/o.Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.R/o.Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

(Respondent No.2 & 3 are not necessary party in this petition)

Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court maybe pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in WPMP[NO.][ 19351/10][ dt.]02-07-10 in WP NO. 15368/10.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010fWVMP. NO: 4369 OF 2010)

Between:

S.R.K. Rajagopal Narasaraju, S/o.late S.R.K. Ramachandra RajuR/o.Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

AND

...PETITIONER/5*^ RESPONDENT

1. Vaddrevu Sundar Ratnakar Rao,S/o.V.V. Sundara Rao, Aged 378Years, R/o.1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam, Ramachandrapuram,[E.G.]District.Years, R/o.1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam, Ramachandrapuram,[E.G.]District.

5. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Vari Temple, Draksharamam,Ramachandrapuram, represented by its Executive Officer.Ramachandrapuram, represented by its Executive Officer.

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court'may bepleased to vacate the interim order dated 2.7.2010 in WPMP No. 19351of2010 in W.P.No.15368 of 2010.

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 19351 OF 2010)

Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleasedto suspend the operation of the order No.145/2010Jdl.dated4.5.2010 made in O.A.No.8 of 2006 of the 2"^^ respondent herein pendingdisposal of the writ petition.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 46007 OF 2014)

Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleasedto stayall further proceedingsin pursuanceofthenotificationpublishedinEENADUDaily(LocalEdition)on25-10-2014invitingapplications for constituting Trust Board pending disposalof aboveWritPetition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. N. NARASIMHAM

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI KANDA SRINIVASU,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS

Counsel for the Respondents No.5

: SRI AKA VENKATARAMANA

WRIT PETITION NO: 15380 OF 2010

Between:

VadrevuSundarRatnakarRao,S/o.SriV.V.SundaraRao,R/o.1-97Vegayammapeta Devanam Ramachandrapuram, E.G. District.

AND

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinda.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmyndry.

4. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Vari Temple, DraksharamamRamachandrapuram, Rep. by its Executive Officer.Ramachandrapuram, Rep. by its Executive Officer.

5. S.R.K. Rajagopal Narasaraju, S/o. Late S.R.K. Ramachanda Raju, R/o.Ramachandrapuram E.G. District.Ramachandrapuram E.G. District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly onein thenature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in and relating to the orderNo.144.2010Jdl.dt.4-5-2010 madein OANo.9of 2006ofthe2ndrespondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary illegal, improper andwithout jurisdiction apart from the violative of principles of natural justice andconsequently direct the1®* respondent to transfer[the][ above][ O.A.]to thecompetent authority.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010fWPMP. NO: 19364 OF 2010)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Courtmaybe pleased to fix an early date for the hearing of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. N. NARASIMHAMCounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KANDA SRINIVASU,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS

Counsel for the Respondents No.5 : SRI AKA VENKATARAMANAWRIT PETITION NO: 35731 OF 2014

Between:

S.R.K. Rajagopal Narasraju, S/o. Late S.R.K. Ramachandra Raju, Aged about58 years, R/o. Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

AND

1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad,[State][ of]Andhra Pradesh.Andhra Pradesh.

4. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Vari Temple, Draksharamam,Ramachandrapuram, Rep. by its Executive Officer.Ramachandrapuram, Rep. by its Executive Officer.

5. Vadrevu Sundar Ratnakar Rao, S/o. V.V.Sundara Rao aged 38 years,R/o 1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam Ramachandrapuram, EastGodavari District.R/o 1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam Ramachandrapuram, EastGodavari District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly,[one]inthenature of "Writof Mandamus" seekingto declare the proceedingsRc.No.BI/23613/2014 dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Respondent[Nos.]1 & 2

as illegal, arbitrary, andin violation of Sections15,18 & 19 of Act 30 of1987, and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,and consequently to set-aside the proceedings Rc.No.B1/23613/201[4][ dated]18.10.2014 passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 44719 OF 2014)Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings[Rc.No.BI/23613/2014]dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Respondent Nos.1 &2,pendingthedisposal of the above writ petition.

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Between:

Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad,[State][ of][ Andhra]Pradesh. ( now at Gollapudi, Vijayawada)

AND

...PETITIONER/1®‘ RESPONDENT

1. S.R.K. Rajagopal Narasraju, S/o. Late S.R.K. Ramachandra Raju, Agedabout 58 years, R/o. Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari[District.]about 58 years, R/o. Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari[District.]

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

4. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Vari Temple, Draksharamam,Ramachandrapuram, Rep. by its Executive Officer.Ramachandrapuram, Rep. by its Executive Officer.

5. Vadrevu Sundar Ratnakar Rao, S/o. V.V.Sundara Rao aged 38 years,R/o. 1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam Ramachandrapuram,[East]Godavari District.R/o. 1-97, Vegayammapeta Devanam Ramachandrapuram,[East]Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedtovacatetheinterimorders,dated11.12.2014inW.P.M.P.N0.44719 OF 2014 in W.P.No.35731 of 2014 and dismiss the writpetition as devoid of merits.

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI N. ASHWANI KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KANDA SRINIVASU,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS

Counsel for the Respondents No.5: SRI V. V. N. NARASIMHAM

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

‘HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI+WRIT PETITION NO: 15368 & 15380/2010 and 35731/2014

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION NO: 15368 & 15380/2010 and 35731/2014

WP No.15368/2010:

%31.12.2024

Between:

#Vaddrevu Sundar Ratnakar Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

$The Commissioner Of Endowments and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner

;

Sri V.V.N. NarasimhamSri N. Ashwin Kumar ! Counsel for Respondents:

GP for Endowments

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

APHC010540982010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3310]

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 15368 & 15380/2010 and 35731/2014

Between:

Vaddrevu Sundar Ratnakar Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The Commissioner Of Endowments and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VVN NARASIMHAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KANDA SRINIVASU SC for Endowments for Konaseema and WestGodavari Districts

2. V T M PRASAD SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS

3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

4. AKA VENKATARAMANA

5. N V ANANTHA KRISHNA

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

WP Nos. 15368 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiafor the following relief:

and relating toto issue a writ the order order No or direction 145/2010 more Jdl. dated particularly 04.05.2010 one in made the nature in O.A.No.8 of writ of of Certiorari 2006 of the calling for 1" respondenrh the recordsJeininand quash the same as arbitrary illegal improper and without jurisdiction apart from the violative of principlesofanJSss'direct the 1st respondent to transfer the above[O A][ to][ Te][ SmfJteTaShoriW]

WP No.15380 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief;

....to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for therecords in and relating to the order No 144 2010 Jdl dt 4.5.2010 made in OA No 9 of 2006 of the 2nd respondentherein and quash the same as arbitrary illegal improper and without jurisdiction apart from the violative ofprinciples ofnatural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the above O A to thecompetent authority andpass...”

WP No.35731 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiafor the following relief; .o°''der O’’ direction more particularly one in the[nature]of Writof Mandamus dated18.10.2014 passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Sections 151819 of Act 30of 1987 and in violation of Article 1419 and 21of the Constitutionof India andproreedings Rc No .81/23613/2014 dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Respondent Nos 1 ^2 and^pass such otherfurther order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass....”

2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same,they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of thisCommon Order.

3. The petitioners in WP Nos.15368 and 15380 of 2010 are hail fromthe family of Rajahsree Vadrevu Sundarappa Bahadur, the then Zamindar ofVegayammapetaEstatein RamachandrapuramTaluk,Theirforefathersdonated Ac 120.00 of Wet land situated in the village of Vegayammapet toLordBheemeswara Swamy varuof Draksharamaforthepurposeofdevelopment.At present the value of the land donated by their family is overandabovecroresofrupees.ThepetitionersancestorsconstructedSomavara Mandapam” in the premises of Bheemeswara Swamy vari templewith their own money in the year 1878 and it was reconstructed by their family

in the year 1929 and also constructed Mandapam at Vegayamapeta[in][ which]place of Lord Bheemeswara Swamy varu and his consort Sri ManikyalambaAmmavaru are taken in procession on the day of Kalyanam[of][ Lord][ and]hisconsort and the Lord stay for one night and returns back to the temple.It isstatedthat the Endowments Department appointedseveralarchakasonbehalf petitioners’ familytill now and the said processis continuing.Itisstated that in the year 2006 the 4^^ respondent claimed to be founder familymember and subsequently he was removed as a trustee of 3^^^ respondenttemple. As the petitioners are interested in serving the temple as a foundermembers trustee, they made representations to declare[them]as founderfamily members, but in vain.Therefore, the petitionerin WP No.15368 of2010 wasfiledO.ANo.9of 2006beforethe2^^respondentseekingdeclaration that he is the eligible to be appointed as founder family memberduly enclosing all the relevant documents by making the 5*^ respondent hereinalso as a party to the proceedings.Similarly the 5*^ respondent herein alsogot filed O.A No.8 of 2006 before the 2'^^ respondent seeking the same reliefand both the O.As were clubbed together.

Whilethematterstoodthus,the Governmentof AndhraPradeshconstituted Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad conferring jurisdiction onit forthe entire Stateof Andhra Pradeshfor the determination of any disputes,question including declaration under Section 87(h) or matter relatingto aCharitable Institution, Dharmadayam, Religious charity[etc...][ as][ defined][ in][ the]Act.By virtue of the said constitution, the 2"'^ respondent[herein][ ceases][ to]

have jurisdiction to determine and decide the issue involved in both the O.As,as the same has been conferred on the said Tribunal.Thereafter, the 2ndrespondent was conducting the proceedingsin the above O.As jointly andboth the O.As were posted for the cross exmaiantion[and][ the][ same][ were]adjourned to 11.06.2010. On 11.06.2010 the 2"^^ respondent served a generalnoticeonthepetitioners’counselsstatingthattheTribunalhasbeenconstituted and the officer has taken the charge and all the matters adjournedto 11.06.2010 will be posted before the Tribunal on[28.06.2010][ and][ both][ the]petitioners were directed to appear before the Tribunal[on]thesaiddate.While so, the petitioner in WP No. 15368 of 2010 has[received a][ caveat][ filed]before this Court by the 5^^ respondent herein to the effect the[ 2"*^] respondentpassed an order dated 04.05.2006 in O.A No.8 of 2006[appointing][ him][ as a]founder family trustee and rejected the O.A No.9 of[2006][ which][ was][ filed][ by]the petitioner in WP No.15368 of 2010 on the ground[that][ he]is not havingjurisdictiontodecidethesame,Theorderdated4.5.2006ofthe2ndrespondent made in O.A No.8 of 2006 and O.A No.9 of[2006][ are][ totally][ illegal]arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Hence, the present[writ petitions.]

4. This Court, in WP No. 15368 of 2010, vide order,[dated][ 02.07.2010,]while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim suspension as prayed for.In theother WP No.15380 of 2010, this Court while issuing Rule Nisi, the matter wasdirected to posted along with WP No. 15368 of 2010.

5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2respondent[and][ the]respondentsNo.1and3 are adoptedthe same.Whiledenyingallthe

allegations madein thepetition,inter alia, contendedthat, the Petitionerswitness P.W.1in O.A.No.8/2006 was already examined[on][ 19.01.2010][ and]partly cross examined in part and posted the case finally[on][ 20.4.2010][ and]closedtheevidenceandreservedfororderson27.4.2010itself.Thecontentions of thePetitioner that the cross examination was adjourned to11.6.2010 is totally false. The general notice issued relates to the cases whichwere pending, but not in respect of the cases of Petitioner and 5th respondent.It is stated that this Court has jurisdiction to decide[the][ matters][ U/s.87][ of][ the]Act 30/87till the Endowments Tribunalis constituted.Itis not true that theTribunal wasconstitutedon13-8-2009.It was formedduring6/2010byappointing Chairman for the Tribunal. Further, as per directions of this Court,the enquiry was concludedby 27-4-2010itself priortotheformationofTribunal.It is further stated that the Petitioners claim is appointment as TrustBoard memberbutnot as Founder Family Member.Thereisdifferencebetween Founder Family Member and Trust Board Member[as][ Trustee.][ Since]Founder Family Member will be appointed as Chairman, hence, the prayers inO.A.8/2006 and O.A.No.9/2006 are different and both O.As were not clubbed.It is further stated that, in respect of institutions existing at the commencementof the Act 30/87, the person who was recognized as Hereditary trustee underrepealed Act 1966 is a Founder or Member of his family as per section 17(1)(a) of the Act. The father of 5th Respondent Sri K. Rama Chandra Raju wasdeclared as HereditaryTrustee by the Commissionerin Cl/2952/72 Dated 07-04-1972 and after him the 5th Respondent was permitted[to] assume the office of Hereditary Trustee by the Commissioner in D. Dis.[No.][ B1/37580/94][ Dated]21.01.1995. The Temple was in existence at the commencement[of][ the][ Act]30/87 and the 5th respondent acted as Hereditary Trustee[and][ he][ was][ also]declaredasFounderFamilyMemberbytheAssistantCommissioner,Endowments Department, Rajahmundryin A1/1733/98 Dt.15.12.1999.[But]itwas set aside on the point of jurisdictionin R.P.10/2009[dt.13-12-2001]withobservation to approach the competent authority for[the][ relief to][ declare][ him]as Founder Family Member. ThePetitioner's forefathers or the petitionerherein were not declared as Hereditary Trustees.It is submitted that giftingproperty to the temple and do not confer the right to claim as Founder FamilyMember as per provision U/s.17(1) (a) and also explanations[there][ under][ of]the Act 30/87. Further the Petitioner prayer in O.A.9/2006 is to appoint him asTrust Board Member and not as Founder Family Member for which the DeputyCommissionerisnot competenttoappoint himas TrustBoardMemberU/s.87(h)of the Act,asit deals with the declarationof Founder FamilyMember only. Hence the O.A. No. 9/2006 filed by the petitioner was dismissedfor the above reason.It is further stated that the 5th respondent took oath ofoffice as Founder Family Member as long as on 21.6.2010 by duly followingprocedure and heis continuing as such.Therefore,in view of the abovecircumstances, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. The 5*^ respondent also filed counter affidavit[in][ WPNo.][ 15380]of2010 denying the allegations made in the petitions.In the counter,it is statedthat,thepetitioneristhelegaldescendantoflateSriRajaVadrevu

Sundarappa Bahadur Zamindar Varu of Vegayammapet is not in dispute. Theother contention of the petitioner that he is having all the eligible qualificationsto be appointed as Founder Family Member and that he[came][ to][ know][ that]this respondentisclaimingfor Founder Family Memberandthatheisinterested in serving the temple as a Founder Family[Trustee][ and][ therefore][ he]maderepresentationtodeclarehimasFounderFamilyMemberandaccordingly filedO.A.No.9of 2006beforethe 2ndRespondentseekingdeclaration that he is eligible to be appointed as Founder Family Member etc.,are not true or correct.It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner even inthe said O.A. did not sought a declaration to declare him as a Founder FamilyMember but he only asked a prayer to appoint him as[a][ Member][ of][ the][ Trust]Board.It is further stated thatthe O.A. filed by this respondent was allowedby the 2^^ Respondent herein after considering the material placed before himand also the O.A. filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that hehas no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner as a[Member][ of][ the][ Trust][ Board]and that the petitioner was advised to approach the[Endowments][ Tribunal]constitutedatHyderabad. Thecontentionof thePetitionerthatthe2ndRespondent conducting the proceedings in the above[OAs][ and][ the][ matters]werepostedforcrossexaminationandthesamewasadjournedto11.06.2010 is not true or correct.It is stated that after hearing both parties, the2"'^Respondent herein passed a reasoned order allowing this respondentO.A. and by the date of the said order, the Endowments[Tribunal][ constituted]under Section 87(h) of the Act has not commencedits functioning and the matters which were pending by 11.06.2010, a general[notice][ was][ issued by]the 2ndRespondent to the counsels appearing in the matters[informing][ them]that all the matters pending were transmitted to the[Endowments][ Tribunal][ at]Hyderabad and the same would be taken up on 28.06.2010[and][ therefore the]2^^ Respondent hadjurisdiction and power to decideissuerelatingtodeclaring this respondent as a Member of the Founder[Family][ and][ the][ said]ndaction of the 2Respondent cannot be found fault with.Therefore, as[there]are no merits in the writ petitions, prayed to dismiss[the][ same.]

7. During pendency of the above two writ petitions,[the][ 5''^][ respondent]in both the writ petitions has filed another writ petition[vide][ WP][ No.35731][ of]Rc.No.B1/23613/2014dated2014aggrievedbytheproceedingsin128.10.2014 issued by the respondents No.1to 3 seekingto appoint aTrusteeship and an Archaka as Ex-Officio member, pending[the][ consideration]of WP No.15368 of 2010 and in violation of Sections[18][ &][ 19][ of][ the][ Act 30][ of]1987.

8. InthesaidWrit Petition No.35731of 2014, vide order dated11.12.2014,this Court after hearing the counsels, the matter was[directed][ to]post after two weeks for filing counter.Meanwhile,[the][ official][ respondents]wereatlibertytoreceiveapplicationspursuanttotheMemoinRc.No.B1/23613/2014 dated 18.10.2014 issued by the[Deputy][ Commissioner]of Endowments andprocess the samebutshallnot passanyorders.appointing Non-Hereditary Trust Board to the 4'^ respondent.

9..Heard Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel appearing[for][ the]petitioners in WP Nos.15368 and 15380 of 2010 and Sri N. Ashwin Kumar,learned counsel appearing for the petitionerin WPNo.35731of 2014andlearned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

10. Onhearing,SriV.V.N.Narasimham,learnedcounselforthepetitioners in WP Nos.15368 and 15380 of 2010, while reiterating the contentsmadein thepetitions, submits that, the 2^^ respondent haspassed theimpugned order without considering the entire material on record.At no pointof time, none of the authorities declared the father of the 5*^ respondent as ahereditary trustee and he claims to be the said trustee and fought the litigationand at no point of time there is any material before the 2"'^ respondent withregard to the said fact.He further submits that the material produced by the5‘^ respondent apparently makesit clear that till the year of 1972 his familyhas no recognition and he fought against the interest of the temple ratherprotecting the said temple.He further submits that the 2"^ respondent whilepassing the impugned order has made an attempt to mark and verify thedocuments of either side particularly the documents produced by the petitionerduring his examination.Therefore, the order passed by the 2"^^ respondent isliable to be set aside.petitioners in WP Nos.15368 and 15380 of 2010, while reiterating the contentsmadein thepetitions, submits that, the 2^^ respondent haspassed theimpugned order without considering the entire material on record.At no pointof time, none of the authorities declared the father of the 5*^ respondent as ahereditary trustee and he claims to be the said trustee and fought the litigationand at no point of time there is any material before the 2"'^ respondent withregard to the said fact.He further submits that the material produced by the5‘^ respondent apparently makesit clear that till the year of 1972 his familyhas no recognition and he fought against the interest of the temple ratherprotecting the said temple.He further submits that the 2"^ respondent whilepassing the impugned order has made an attempt to mark and verify thedocuments of either side particularly the documents produced by the petitionerduring his examination.Therefore, the order passed by the 2"^^ respondent isliable to be set aside.

11. Ontheotherhand,SriN.AshwinKumar,learnedcounselappearing for the petitioner in WP No.35731of 2014, submits that, the maingrievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, as per Rule of successionof Sri S.R.K. Ramachandra Raju stepped into the management by virtue of hisappearing for the petitioner in WP No.35731of 2014, submits that, the maingrievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, as per Rule of successionof Sri S.R.K. Ramachandra Raju stepped into the management by virtue of his

hereditary right after the demise of his father in[1952.]He submits that theGovernmentvideG.O.Ms.No.1649Home(Endts.)Department,dated21.07.1959, has issued orders stating that Sri S.R.K.[Ramachandra][ Raju][ had]noclaim for the hereditary trusteeship of the temple. The[ rights] and powers[ of]the hereditary trustee are governed by the modified[scheme][ dated][ 21.12.1957]settled by the department under the Act XIX of 1951.He further submits thatthe petitioner being the eldest son stepped into the[management][ of][ the][ temple]andHereditaryTrusteeandhewaspermittedbytheCommissioner,Endowment,HyderabadinD.DisNo.BI/39580/94dated21.01.1995toassume charge of the office of the Hereditary Trust[of][ this][ temple][ subject][ to]the result of the cases relating to Section 16 of the[Act][ 30][ of][ 1987][ pending]disposal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India[which][ arose][ due][ to][ the]abolition of the hereditary rights in the Act 30 of[1987.]Learned counselfurthersubmitsthat,the4respondentinthiswritpetitionhasfiledWPNo.15368 of 2010 against the order dated 4.5.2010[passed][ in][ OA][ No.8][ of]2006 wherein the1respondent herein held that Sri S.R.K. RamachandraRaju is declared as the Founder Family Member of the[3'^'^][ respondent][ temple]Devasthanam and as such the this petitioner was permitted[to][ assume][ office]of hereditary trustee after the demise of his father.[The][ respondents][ No.1][ and]2 vide impugned proceedings dated 18.10.2014 issued[Notification][ to][ appoint]persons asFounder Trustee, Name of Archaka to be appointed as[Ex-Officio]and names of Prominent persons with a long track recordinviolationofSections 15, 18 & 19 of the Act andin utter disregard[to][ the][ order][ dated]

4.5.2010inO.ANo.8of2006andtheearlierordersconfirmingtheappointment of this petitioner as the “Hereditary Trustee”.Hence, learnedcounsel prayedto pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugnedproceeding dated 18.10.2014.

12. Percontra,learnedGovernmentPleader appearingfortherespondents also while reiterating the contents urged in the counter affidavits,opposed for allowing these writ petitions and prayed[to][ dismiss][ the][ same.]respondents also while reiterating the contents urged in the counter affidavits,opposed for allowing these writ petitions and prayed[to][ dismiss][ the][ same.]

13. Perused the material on record.

14. As seen from the order dated 4.5.2010 passed in[O.A.No.8][ of][ 2006]andO.ANo.9of2006bytheDeputyCommissioner,EndowmentsDepartment, Kakinada, wherein the Tribunal has declared the 5‘^ respondentas Founder Family Member of Sri Bhimeswara Swamy temple[in][ O.A][ No.8][ of]2006 and rejected the claim of the petitioner in WPNo.[15368][ of][ 2010]in O.ANo.9 of 2006 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction.

15. Admittedly,theGovernmentof AndhraPradeshconstitutedEndownients Tribunal at Hyderabad conferring jurisdiction.By virtue of thesaid constitution, the 2"'^ respondent, whois Deputy[Commissioner][ herein]ceases to have jurisdiction to determine and decide[the][ issue][ involved]in theO.As filed by the petitioner and 5*^ respondent.Endownients Tribunal at Hyderabad conferring jurisdiction.By virtue of thesaid constitution, the 2"'^ respondent, whois Deputy[Commissioner][ herein]ceases to have jurisdiction to determine and decide[the][ issue][ involved]in theO.As filed by the petitioner and 5*^ respondent.

16. ThisCourtfurtherobservedthat,the2"^^respondentwasconducting the proceedings in the above O.As jointly[and][ when][ the][ both][ the]conducting the proceedings in the above O.As jointly[and][ when][ the][ both][ the]

O.As were posted for the cross examination and adjourned[to][ 11.06.2010.][ On]11.6.2010, the 2'^'' respondent served a general notice[on][ counsels][ stating]that the Tribunal has been constituted and the officer[has][ taken][ the][ charge]and all the matters adjourned to 11.6.2010 and the[parties][ were][ directed][ to]a\be appeared before the Tribunal on the said date.[The][ order][ of][ the][ Deputy]Commissioner was passed on 4.5.2010, whichis challengedin thesewritpetitions.

17. It is the contention of the petitioners that on[the][ constitution][ of][ the]Endowment Tribunal, the jurisdiction on deciding the[issues][ pertaining][ to][ the]provisionsu/s 87(h) along with the other provisions were taken[over from][ the]2"^^ respondent (DC) and were conferred on the Tribunal[from][ the][ date][ of][ its]constitution. Admittedly the Tribunal was constituted[on][ 13.08.2009][ by][ way][ of]notification by the Government of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No.837[dated 13.08.2009]therefore passing the orders on a later dated i.e.,[4.5.2010]in O.A No.8 of2006 and in O.A No.9 of 2006 are nothing but a clear[abuse][ of][ process][ of][ law]and without jurisdiction.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is observed[that,][ certain]issues are arosein the present writ petition, which[cannot][ be][ decided]before this Court at this stage, but they have to be[decided][ before][ the]Endowments Tribunal.Therefore, this Court is inclined[to][ dispose][ of][ the]writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15368 and 15380 of 2010 by[setting][ aside][ the]orders of the Deputy Commissioner.issues are arosein the present writ petition, which[cannot][ be][ decided]before this Court at this stage, but they have to be[decided][ before][ the]Endowments Tribunal.Therefore, this Court is inclined[to][ dispose][ of][ the]writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15368 and 15380 of 2010 by[setting][ aside][ the]orders of the Deputy Commissioner.

19. Therefore,whilesettingasidetheimpugnedordersdated4.5.2010 passed in O.A.No.8 of 2006 &O.A. No.9 of 2006[on][ the][ file][ of][ the]Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, the petitionersin both the writ petitions are at liberty to raise their objections before theEndowments Tribunal, which was constituted by way of notification by theGovernment of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.08.2009.4.5.2010 passed in O.A.No.8 of 2006 &O.A. No.9 of 2006[on][ the][ file][ of][ the]Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, the petitionersin both the writ petitions are at liberty to raise their objections before theEndowments Tribunal, which was constituted by way of notification by theGovernment of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.08.2009.

20. Insofar as WP No.35731of 2014is concerned, the impugnedproceedingsinRc.No.BI/23613/2014dated18.10.2014 issued by therespondents No.1 and 2 are hereby set aside.If at all any grievance, thepetitionerisatlibertytoraisehisobjectionsbeforetheEndowmentsTribunal-.

21. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposedof. The mattersare remanded back to the Endowments Tribunal for fresh consideration.Further, the Tribunal is directed to consider the cases and pass appropriatereasonedorderafteraffordingopportunitytoboththepartiesasexpeditiously as possible.There shall be no order[as]tocosts.Asasequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications[shall][ stand][ closed.]Sd/-K.SRiNlVASA RAJU//TRUE COPY//ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO(For His Lordship’s kind perusal)To

1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.

4. The Executive Officer, Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Vari Temple,Draksharamam, Ramachandrapuram.Draksharamam, Ramachandrapuram.5. One CC toSri V. V. N. Narasimham, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)

7. One CC to Sri Aka Venkataramana, Advocate [OPUC]

8. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

9. One CC to Sri N. V. Anantha Krishna, Advocate [OPUC]

10. One CC to Sri Kanda Srinivasu, SC for Endowments [OPUC]

11.9 L.R. Copies.

12. The Under Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice &Company Affairs, New Delhi.Company Affairs, New Delhi.

13. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, High Court ofA.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District.,A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District.,

14. Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

/*

HIGH COURT

CNR

DATED:31/12/2024

L.R. COPIES

%g2 9 JAN' 222367'Current Section ^.0^,-

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.15368,15380 of 2010 and 35731 of 2014

DISPOSING THE W.PsWITHOUT COSTS

r