WP/33483/2013 of Deity Rama, Nookalamma Temple Road, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary Revenue(Endowments) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.(Endowments) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissionerof Endowments,Governmentof Andhra Pradesh,HyderabadHyderabad

3. The Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry

4. The Dy. Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry, East[Godavari]DistrictDistrict

5. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, East GodavariDistrictDistrict

6. The Inspector of Temples, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

7. The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Pithapuram,[East][ Godavari]District.District.

8. Donkina Konda, S/o Appala Raju, Occ: cultivation, NookalammaTemple Road, Ward No.9, Pithapuram, East Godavari DistrictTemple Road, Ward No.9, Pithapuram, East Godavari District

9. Donkina Raghava S/o Appala Raju, Occ: cultivation,[Nookalamma]

Temple Road, Ward No.9, Pithapuram, East Godavari District

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly.orreof-;jnthenatureofWritof MandamusdeclaringtheinactionResp^ents1 to 6 in protecting the endowment property of Deity Ramaadmeasuring 158 4/9 yards of vacant site situated at Nookalamma TempleRoad,- Ward No.9, Pithapuram, East Godavari Districtasillegal,unjust,arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution ofIndia and consequently direct the respondents to protect the endowmentproperty of Deity Rama.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013rWPMP. NO: 41662 OF 2013)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court maybe pleased to direct the 7th respondent Sub-Registrar not to accept andregister any documents of alienation in connection with the property of DeityRama admeasuring 158 4/9 yards of vacant site situated at NookalammaTemple Road, Ward No.9, Pithapuram, East GodavariDistrict,pendingdisposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the PetitioneriSRI K R PRABHAKAR

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6: GP FOR ENDOWMENTSCounsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR STAMPS AND

REGISTRATION

Counsel for the Respondents No.8,9: SRI P R PRASAD

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010571862013

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 RAOWRIT PETITION NO: 33483/2013

Between:

...PETITIONER

Deity Rama, Nookalamma Temple Road,

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K R PRABHAKAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. P R PRASAD

3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the[Constitution][ of][ India]

seeking the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction[more]particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus[declaring][ the]inactionof Respondents1to6in protecting the endowmentproperty of Deity Rama admeasuring 158 4/9 yards of[vacant][ site]situated at Nookalamma Temple Road Ward No.9, Pithapuram,East Godavari District, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary[and][ in][ violation][ of]Articles14,21, 25 and 26of theConstitutionof India,[and]

consequently direct the respondents to protect the endowmentproperty of Deity Rama’’

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of vacant site admeasuring 158 4/9 yards, situated at Nookalamma Temple[Road]WardNo.9, Pithapuram, East Godavari district (for short “subject property”). About120 years back, the great grandfather of the petitioner i.e.,Sri Padmarajudonated the subject property to the petitioner Lord Rama and installed the Idolin a thatched shed and the said Padmaraju acted as Mariaging Trustee to theDeity and his property. About 80 years back, the thatched shed in which deitywas installedin subject property was collapsed. Since then,thesubjectproperty was kept vacant. The general public and statutory authorities havebeen treating the subject property as the property belongs to Deity Rama andtreatingit as Rama Kovela (temple), which was shown in sale deeds dated10.05.1965 and 02.02.1983 of the adjacent house sites which were registeredwith the office of Sub-Registrar, Pithapuram. Thoughitis vacant, generalpublic till recent past had conducted bajanas in the subject property. After thedeath of Padmaraju,his natural son Doolla Ayyanna becamehereditarymanagingtrusteeofsubjectproperty.Whilethingsstoodthustherespondents 8 and 9 unauthorizedly kept cement pipes in subject property.Accordingly, the said Doolla Ayyanna issued a legal notice and called uponthem to execute regular lease deed to continue possession in the subjectproperty as lessees. The said Doolla Ayyanna filed a suit in O.S.No.168 of 1985 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Pithapuram[against][ the][ respondents]8 and 9 for declaration of his title and after full[fledged]trial, the suit wasdecreed on 22.05.1990 in favour of the petitioner Deity[Rama,][ Pithapuram.]After the deathof Doolla Ayyanna on 30.10.1992,hiseldersonDoollaSattiraju became managing trustee of subject property.[In][ the][ year 2004,][ the]hereditary managing trustee decided to construct RCC[roofed][ permanent]temple for Deity Rama in the subject property. While[so,][ the][ respondents][ 8]and 9 started to claim that the property belongs to[them][ and][ trying][ to sell][ the]property of Lord Rama to gullible third parties. The[family][ of][ Managing][ Trustee]10.06.2004and05.11.2004madearepresentationtothe Tahsildar onrequesting him to conduct survey and demarcate the[said][ land.][ Thereafter,][ the]petitioner came to know that the respondents 8 and[9]filedfirst appealinA.S.No.5 of 1990 against the Decree and Judgment in[O.S.No.168][ of][ 1985]and the same was dismissed on 17.06.1991 and the second[appeal][ vide]S.A.No.241of 1992 was also dismissed by this Court[on][ 04.04.1996.][ The]petitioner made representations to the respondents1to 6includingtherepresentation dated 07.09.2011. But the respondents[have]not taken anysteps to protect the subject religious and endowments[property.][ Further,][ the]petitioner also made a representation to the Tahsildar[dated][ 30.01.2013][ not][ to]register any document in connection with alienation[with][ property][ in][ question.]

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents1 to 6 in protecting the subject property, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. This Court vide order dated 22.11.2013 has grantedthe followinginterim order:interim order:

Conclusion

“TheAssistantCommissionerofEndowments,EastGodavari shall examine the complaint of the petitioner[and][ if][ it][ is]found to be correct, take effective steps for protecting the propertyin question. ”

4. HeardMr.BobbiliSrinivas,learnedcounselrepresentingMr.K.R.Prabhakar,learnedcounselforthepetitionerandMr.P.Srinivas,learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for the respondents.

5. Onhearing, learned counselfor the petitioner whilereiteratingthecontents urgedin the writ petition, submits that, as the second appealwasdismissed on 04.04.1996 and no Executive Petition was filed in O.S.No.168 of1985, the petitioner filed E.P.No.85 of 2004 in O.S.No.168 of 1985 on the fileof Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. Thereafter, the petitioner’s family came toknow that already an EP was filed subsequent to Judgment and Decree dated22.05.1990. Then, the respondents 8 and 9 started to claim that earlier thepetitioner filed E.P.No.19 of 1990, wherein though record of deliverywasprepared in pursuance of the order in E.P.No.19 of 1990, they were notdispossessed from the suit property. Hence, the petitioner approached MROand obtained copy of judgment in second appeal. But, E.P.No.85 of 2004 wascontents urgedin the writ petition, submits that, as the second appealwasdismissed on 04.04.1996 and no Executive Petition was filed in O.S.No.168 of1985, the petitioner filed E.P.No.85 of 2004 in O.S.No.168 of 1985 on the fileof Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. Thereafter, the petitioner’s family came toknow that already an EP was filed subsequent to Judgment and Decree dated22.05.1990. Then, the respondents 8 and 9 started to claim that earlier thepetitioner filed E.P.No.19 of 1990, wherein though record of deliverywasprepared in pursuance of the order in E.P.No.19 of 1990, they were notdispossessed from the suit property. Hence, the petitioner approached MROand obtained copy of judgment in second appeal. But, E.P.No.85 of 2004 was dismissed on 27.07.2006. He further submits that the[petitioner][ Deity’s][ title]over the subject property is declared in O.S.No.168[of][ 198b.][ Hence,][ it][ is][ clear]that the subject property is a religious endowment[coming][ under][ the][ purview]of Endowments Act, 1987. But the respondents 8 and[9][ again][ encroached][ the]subject property in the month of April, 2004 and sicne[then,][ they][ are]inunathorized possession and trying to sell the same.[He][ further][ submits][ that.]as perSection 1(3)(b) of the Endowments Act, the provisions[of][ Endowment]Act appliestoallHinduPublicReligiousInstitutionsandEndowments,whether registerd or not and as such, the respondents1to 6 have to protectthe subject property byinitiating appropriate proceedingsforevictionofencroachersfromtheendowmentlandundertheprovisionsoftheA.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and[Endowments][ Act,][ 1987]and recognize the petitioner as member of founder family[and][ protect][ the]endowment property. Therefore, learned counsel requests[this][ Court][ to][ pass]appropriate orders.

6. PerContra,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleadervehementlyopposed for grant of any relief in the present Writ[Petition][ and][ prayed][ to]dismiss the same.

7. Perused the record.

8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, thepetitioner filed O.S.No.168 of 1985 against the unofficial respondents 8 and 9for declaration of title that the plaintiff is the owner of plaint schedule propertyand for consequential relief for possession of plaint schedule property afterejecting the defendants and for future profits against themtill possessionifgiven and for costs. The said suit is decreedin favour of the petitioner on22.08.1990 on the file of District Munsif, Pithapuram. Thereafter, the unofficialrespondents have preferred appeal suit vide A.S.No.5 of 1990 on the file ofSub-ordinate Judge, Pithapuram and the same was dismissed on 17.06.1991.Thereafter, the said unofficial respondents 8 and 9 have preferred secondappeal vide S.A.No.241of 1992beforethisCourt andthesamewasdismissed on 04.04.1996.petitioner filed O.S.No.168 of 1985 against the unofficial respondents 8 and 9for declaration of title that the plaintiff is the owner of plaint schedule propertyand for consequential relief for possession of plaint schedule property afterejecting the defendants and for future profits against themtill possessionifgiven and for costs. The said suit is decreedin favour of the petitioner on22.08.1990 on the file of District Munsif, Pithapuram. Thereafter, the unofficialrespondents have preferred appeal suit vide A.S.No.5 of 1990 on the file ofSub-ordinate Judge, Pithapuram and the same was dismissed on 17.06.1991.Thereafter, the said unofficial respondents 8 and 9 have preferred secondappeal vide S.A.No.241of 1992beforethisCourt andthesamewasdismissed on 04.04.1996.

9. Having regardtothefacts and circumstancesof the case and onconsidering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of theopinion that, the petitioner has ownership for the subject property in view ofO.S.No.168 of 1985. Further, this Court has also grantedinterim orderon22.11.2013. As the respondents have not filed any counter till date, this Courtis inclined to dispose of the present writ petition, while making the interimorder as absolute, directing the respondents1 to 6 to take effective steps forprotectingthe subjectproperty,byfollowing dueprocessoflaw,if thepetitioner is in possession.considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of theopinion that, the petitioner has ownership for the subject property in view ofO.S.No.168 of 1985. Further, this Court has also grantedinterim orderon22.11.2013. As the respondents have not filed any counter till date, this Courtis inclined to dispose of the present writ petition, while making the interimorder as absolute, directing the respondents1 to 6 to take effective steps forprotectingthe subjectproperty,byfollowing dueprocessoflaw,if thepetitioner is in possession.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.[No][ costs.]

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

HIGH COURTDATED:31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.33483 of 2013

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS