Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple Trust, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 25 February, 2025
APHC010001712025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 86/2025
Between:
Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple Trust, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
3. GP FOR REVENUE
4. 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 declaring the inaction of respondents on the representations of the petitioners in the name and on behalf of Sri Kodandarama Swamy temple Kotanemalipuri th to prosecute the 7 respondent and all the concerned and 2 evict from Ac.10 Acres of agricultural land situate in Sy.Nos.249/2B and 249/2A of Nemalipuri village as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently th direct the respondents to register crime against the 7 respondent recover damages towards the loss of usufruct st and hand over the same to the 1 petitioner...."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner-Trust was constituted and registered with Reg.No.197/2022, dated 9.12.2022 to renovate and maintain Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple, Kota Nemalipuri. The ancestors of the petitioners created a specific endowment of Ac.19.74 cents of agricultural land possessed by them in Survey Nos.249/2B and 249/2A of Nemalipuri village (for short "subject property"). In 1920, an another unregistered settlement deed was executed, granting usufruct/koul in favour of Archakas Sri Narayanam Gopalacharyulu and his son to cover the expenditure for his honorarium and costs rituals and celebrations. They were permitted to cultivate or lease out the lands. Accordingly, they cultivated/leased out the lands to meet these expenses. The Deity of the temple is the absolute owner of the above said property and the ROR and Adangal of Nemalipuri village reflect the name of incumbent manager of Sri.Kodanda Ramaswamy Temple. The Archaka was only entitled to honorarium for the services. While things stood thus, the 7th respondent obtained a sale deed from one Sri Narayanam Seshu Babu vide document No.1103/2010, dated 02.03.2010 in respect of 5 acres in Sy.No.249/2B. Upon noticing the sale deed executed by the above said Seshu babu, the petitioners 3 complained the same to Sub Registrar, Piduguralla requesting to cancel the invalid sale deed and 4th respondent to take over the possession of the subject property. After receipt of complaint, the Commissioner & Inspector, General of Stamps and Registration, was pleased to Issue Lr.No.Can/9006/2010, dated 24.06.2010 to cancel the registration. Aggrieved by the same, the 7th respondent filed W.P.No.17477/2010 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2010. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department was pleased to execute a cancellation deed bearing No.1955/2011, dated 29.03.2011 stating that the vendor had no right and the Deity of the temple is true owner and the document No.1103/2010, dated 02.03.2010 was cancelled by the 4th respondent. Again, the 7th respondent filed W.P.No.14814/2011 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2012. Thereafter, the 7th respondent filed O.S.No.12/2012 before the learned District Judge, Guntur and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 06.05.2024. However, the 7th respondent encroached the subject property without any valid sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 7th respondent.
4
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 7th respondent has unlawfully encroached upon valuable land irrigated by the Sagar Canal, using a fake sale deed in the name of a person whose whereabouts are unknown. The petitioners have also lodged a complaint with respondents 4 to 6, requesting the eviction of the 7th respondent from the temple lands and appropriate action to be taken. The 4th respondent is the competent authority to evict any person from the endowment lands. Despite the passage of a considerable amount of time, the respondents have not taken any action. The descendants of the hereditary trustees constituted the 1st petitioner-Trust and had it registered to manage the affairs of the temple properties endowed to the Sri Kodandaramaswamy temple and to conduct the rituals. Thus, the petitioner-trust has right and obligation to protect the temple lands which were endowed by the petitioners' forefathers and use the usufruct for the purposes of the trust. He further submits that the lands are notified under Section 22(a)(2) of Registration. The respondent authorities have obligation to protect the interest of properties of the temple. Despite clear evidence and records, the respondents are not taking any action against the 7th respondent. The 3rd respondent is not issuing Pattadar Pass Book in the name of the temple though the name of the temple is reflecting in 1-B register. He further submits that the 7th respondent has no right over the subject property and all the proceedings initiated by the 7th respondent were rejected by this Court as well 5 as the learned District Judge, Guntur. The 7th respondent is unlawfully enjoying 10 acres of land belonging to the temple encroached by him and with the direct or indirect support of the respondent authorities. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished a copy of written instructions vide Lr.in.Rc.No.A2/23/25, dated 03.01.2025 issued by the District Endowment Officer and submits that the 2nd petitioner along with others made a representation to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Gollapudi, requesting the withdrawal of the Executive Officer appointed by the Commissioner and the transfer of the management of the temple to them, as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.298, Revenue (Endts-II) Department, dated 06.07.2023, since the income of the temple is below five lakhs per annum. Accordingly, on getting reports, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Gollapudi passed orders in D.Dis.No.D2/COE-14021(42)/6/2024, dated 28.05.2024 with certain conditions, and duly granted exemption from the operation of Sections 15, 29, 57 and 65 of the Endowments Act 30/1987 for a period of 5 years from the date of handing over the administration and management of the subject temple. He further submits that the petitioners made a representation dated 12.11.2024 to this respondent bringing to the notice of the 4th respondent regarding the encroachment made by the 7th respondent in an extent of 6 Ac.5.00 cents in addition to the previous occupation of Ac.5.00 cents and requested for initiation of steps for removal of encroachment. In reply to the said representation, the 4th respondent issued instructions vide Rc.No.A2/2085/2023, dated 22.11.2024 to the petitioners to produce all files and records relating to the subject matter so as to take further action in the matter. He further submits that, as the persons responsible for the management of the said temple, it is the duty of the petitioners to initiate steps for the eviction of the encroachers by issuing a show cause notice under Section 83(2) of the Endowments Act 30/1987, as amended by Act 36/2023, to the 7th respondent, and to take further steps based on any explanation or reply submitted by the 7th respondent. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders.
6. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
i. If the petitioners are intends to evict the 7th respondent, they are directed to initiate steps for evicting the 7th respondent under Section 83 (2) of the Endowments Act and thereafter submit a report before the 5th respondent temple. 7 ii. Further, the respondent Nos.4 and 6 are directed to cooperate with the petitioners as and when required for eviction of the 7 th respondent.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS