Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Anjaneya Swamy Vari Called As Sree ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 23487 OF 2011
Between:
Sri Anjaneya Swamy Vari (called as Sree Seetharama, Anjaneya Temple),
Poraki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna Districe (Private Temple), rep by
its Managing Trustee, Tenneti Venkata Subba Rao.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Endowment and Rural Department, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, A.P.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Govt, of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3. The Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.
4. The Sub-Registrar, Registration Office, Gunadala, Vijayawada East,
Krishna District.
5. The Mandal Revenue OFficer, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Vijayawada.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus:
i) to declare the Revenue Officials has no power to record the
agricultural land of the petitioner situated at R.S. No. 54/1, Done
Atkuru Village, Vijayawada Rural MAndal, Krishna District, as
Endowment laiTcL"and same is contrary to A.P. Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and
G.O.Ms, No. 3935 L & M dt.01.10.1928 of The Madras
Government, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of
India.
ii) Consquently, to declare the proceedings dt.01.06.2011 of
Respondent No. 4 in not giving Valuation Certificate to the
petitioner's agricultural land in R.S. No. 54/1, Done Atkuru Village,
Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District is contrary to Andhra
Pradesh Registration (Prohibition of Registration of Certain
Documents Opposed to Public Policy) Rules, 1999 and violation
of Articles 14 and 31A of Constitution of India, arbitrary, illegal,
capricious and direct Respondent No. 4 to give valuation
Certificate to the Petitioner's said agricultural land
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 28755 OF 2011)
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
pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 herein to give valuation certificate to
the Agri. land in RS 54/1 Done, Atkuru Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal,
Krishna District pending the W.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA SUBBAIAH V
Counsel for the Respondent No's.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND
STAMPS
The Court made the following ORDER:
1
APHC010305812011 (.qur-t qF ANDHRA PRADESH [33101
at ANIARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
present
K 1\AANN1ADHA RAO
THE honourable dr justice
WRIT pfTITIO^* NO: 23487/2011
Between; ...petitioner
Sri Anjaney aswamyvari (called AS SreeSeetharama
and
rESPONDENT(S)
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner;
V
1 .venkatasubbaiah
Counsel for the Respondent(S);
1.GP FOR REVENUE
2.GP for endowments
STAMPS (AP)-17705/AP/0/0
3.GP for registration and
The Court made the following;
ORDER; of India for
This writ petition is is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
the following relief;
. , , the nature of Writ of Mandamus 0)at toR
" to issue a Writ Order or
Direction more particularly petitioner sii
situated
Officials has no power to record the as Endowment iand and same
declare the Revenue Mandat Knshna Distnc^s q O Ms No
Institutions and Endo ^4 of Constitution of
3935 LMdtOI
"'loT/orRespondent No 4 in not giving
India a Consequently to
2
RRural Mandal Krishna
^ District
n agricultural
is contrary to Andhraland in R S No 54/1 Done Atkuru
Village Vijayawada
Pradesh Registration Prohibition of Registration of
Certain Docurnents Opposed to Public Policy Rules 1999 and violation of Articles 14 and 31A of
IZep'rr '"^3alland...."
to the Petitioners said agricultural capricious and direct Respondent No 4 to give valuation Certificate
2. The brief facts of the
case are that the Petitioner is the Managing
trustee of the Petitioner temple situated at R.S. No.54/1. Done Atkuru Village.
Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. The Petitioner s maternal great
grandfather, Late Sri Rayaparthi Venkata Subbayya, Retired Karanam and
resident of Poranki Village had constructed a small Anjaneya Swamy Temple
in the year 1907 for family purpose in his Mango garden situated at D.No.141
[now R.S. No.433(2)], Poranki Village, Krishna District. The said Subbayya
had purchased agricultural land to an extent Ac. 4-06 cents in D. No.28 at
Done Atkuru Village, Krishna District, by a registered Sale Deed on
01.07.1915 with his
money in the name Sri Anjaneya Swamy Vari.
own
represented by him as the Trustee. In the resurvey conducted in the year
1927, the above land
was shown as field No.54/1 and ownership of the land
was shown in the rough settlement register published by the Survey
Department as "Anjaneya Swamy". Sri Subbayya had also given written
representations on 30.08.1927 and 14.02.1928 respectively to the Spl. Asst.
Settlement Officer requesting to incorporate his name as Trustee, but the
officer refused to change in the register; however, it didn't effect the rights of
the Trustee over the land
as per records in his possession. Accordingly, the
said Subbayya represented to then Madras Government which issued G.O.
Ms. No.3935 L & M,
on 01.10.1928, exempting Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple
at Porariki in Bezawada Taluk of Krishna District from all provisions of Madras
Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, but the said G.O. is binding on the
Govt, of Andhra Pradesh. Sri Subbayya has also installed idols of Sri Rama
as Sree
and Seetha Devi in the said temple which is now called
Seetharamanjaneya Temple.
While the matter stood thus, Sri Subbayya created a Family Temple
Trust for Sree Seetharamanjaneya Swamy Temple through his registered
Trustee Deed (WILL). He appointed his sons-in-law, Ganugapati Kutumba
Rao (H/o Mahalakshmamma) and Tenneti Venkata Subbarayudu (H/o
Seetharamamma) as Trustees on 02.08.1929, with their sons as male
descendants continuing as hereditary Trustees. The eldest male member by
name Tenneti Venkata Subbarayudu to be the Managing Trustee of the said
Family temple Trust according to the Trust Deed Will. It was clearly stated in
the WILL that the temple was constructed for the benefit of his family and
public have no right to enter into the temple. After demise of Tenneti
Patabhiramayya, the Petitioner being the eldest male member of my family is
the Managing Trustee, It is further stated that, as some persons are
interfering with the possession of the said land, the petitioner intends to file a
suit and for that purpose he applied for Valuation Certificate for Ac 4.06 cents
in R.S.No.54/1, Done Atkuru Village, Krishna District, according to Rule 3 of
But the
the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1987.
same was rejected by the Sub-Registrar-4'^ respondent. Questioning the
action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court, vide order, dated 19.08.2011, while issuing Rule Nisi
has granted interim direction as prayed for.
4. Heard Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned Senior counsel representing
Sri V.Venkata Subaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
5. On hearing, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while
reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, after granting
interim direction by this Court, the petitioner herein has filed a Trust OP
No.355 of 2015 on the file of District Judge, Krishna Machilipatnam seeking
for declaration that the petitioner temple/Private Trust is not amenable to the
provisions of the Indian Trust Act 1862 and as such it is to be declared as a
Private Trust with reference to its identity nature, status and purpose etc. and
for the ancillary and incidental declaration that the properties owned by the
petitioner cannot be identified or described as Endowment properties and
cannot be subjected to the provisions of the AP Endowments Act and to any
restraint as to their possession and for consequential relief of permanent
injunction. The said OP was allowed by the learned District Judge holding
that the petitioner temple i.e., Sri Anjaneya Swamy temple situated at Poranki
village, Penamaluru Mandal is a private Trust temple, which is being
worshipped for the famiiy members of the petitioner herein and it is quite
distinct from the public trust and the properties owned by the petitioner cannot
be identified or described by Endowments Department as the properties of the
5
<tx, Endowment department as the said department has not taken over the
property till date and further the provisions under Endowment Act do not apply
to the petitioner's temple i.e., "Sri Anjaneya Swarhyvari temple". Thereafter
the respondents No.1 to 5 are restrained in interfering in any manner with the
character and nature of the petitioner's temple i.e., private trust and also with
the properties owned by the petitioner to an extent of Ac 4.06 cents, which is
situated at Done, Atkuru village and further the respondents are restrained to
interfere with the nature of management, user in any manner as they were
declared to be owned by the petitioner/Private Trust temple. In view of the
above, learned Senior counsel requests this" Court, as the property of the
petitioner was also declared as Private Trust, the respondents have no right to
record the petitioner's Family Trust land as Endowment land. Further, the
petitioner has also obtained Valuation Certificate to the subject land on
20.04.2007. Therefore, the endorsement of the 4 respondent, dated
01.06.2011 is liable to be set aside and in view of the same nothing survives
in the present writ petition and the same may be closed.
6. On perusing the material on record and on recording the
submissions of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the
opinion that, as stated by the petitioner counsel that the Valuation Certificate
has already been obtained by the petitioner and that the trial Court has
already declared the petitioner's temple as Private Trust, the impugned
endorsement proceedings dated 1.6.2011 issued by the 4'*^ respondent are
declared as illegal and arbitrary.
6
7. In view of the above, the impugned endorsement proceedings dated
01.6.2011 issued by the 4*'" respondent is hereby set aside. Further, in view of
the orders passed by the learned District Judge in Trust OP No.355 of2015,
dated 20.06.2016, no further orders are required to be passed in the present
writ petition and the same is liable to be closed.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as
to costs
9. As a sequel, ail the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
(For His Lordship's kind perusal)
To,
1. One CC to SRI VENKATASUBBAIAH V, Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to AGP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
[OUT]
3. Two CCs to AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh [OUT]
4. 9 L.R. Copies.
5. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice &
Company Affairs, New Delhi.
6. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, High Court
of A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District.
7. Two CCs to GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh
8. The Section Officer, Press Copy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravathi
9. Three C.D. Copies
PRK
HIGH COURT
DATED:20/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.23487 of 2011
CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS