Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Bala Tripurasundari Ammavari ... vs The Deputy Commissioner, on 15 November, 2024
1
APHC010436502012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 35313 OF 2012
Between:
Sri Bala Tripurasundari Ammavari Temple, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Deputy Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
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 proceedings bearing Rc.No.A8/2855/2012, dated 23.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.1, received by the petitioner on 09.11.2012, appointing the rrespondent espondent No.3 as Single Trustee of "Sri Bala Tripurasundari Ammavari Temple, Anjaneya Pantulu Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Guntur District as illegal and ultra vires to the 2 provisions of the Article 14 of the Constitudtion of India besides being in violation of the provisions of A.P.Act 30/87, besides directing not to proceed further and others and pass such other orders...."
2. Heard Mr. V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. V. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents 1 and 2 and Ms. Padmavathi Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Sri Bala Tripurasundari Amma Varu being family goddess of 'Pillalamarri ' family situated in a private property. The ancestors of the Pillamarri Satyanrayana filed a suit in O.S.No.235 of 1958 on the file of learned Principal District Munisif, Tenali seeking direction that Pillalmarri Tripura Sundara Rao and Balakrishna Sastry, who were also their ancestors to render account of money realized from the plaint 'A' schedule property up to date, for delivery of possession of 'A' schedule property and for determination of future profits. The said suit was compromised and obtained decree on 06.01.1964. As per Clause -1 of the Terms of Compromise Decree, the plaint schedule property be set apart by the ancestors of both the parties of the suit for installing diety 'Sri Bala Tripurasundari Amma Varu'. As per Clause-8, the idol which was worshiped by the family members be installed according to Agamasastras.
"Pillamarri vari Sangham" shall be a private temple of the members of the Pillamarri family and that the strangers do have no right of worship.3
4. It is further contended that the temple was constructed with the exclusive funds given by the members of the Pillamarri vari family only. Consequent upon the completion of the construction of the temple and installation of the diety according to the Agamasatras, the temple is being managed by the donations offered by the family members of Pillamarri Vari Family only. No donations are being collected from any member of the public and no hundi is installed in the temple premises. The said Pillamarri vari family has been looking after the affairs of the temple with its own funds. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 23.10.2012 appointing the 3rd respondent as a Single Trustee of the subject temple allegedly in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 15(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act'), besides authorizing the Inspector, Endowments Department, Tenali to administer the oath of office and secrecy to the Single Trustee i.e 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the present writ petition came to be filed.
5. Per contra, 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that Sri Bala Tripurasundari Ammavari Temple, Tenali is published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act vide proceedings of Commissioner dated 12.11.1987 of Sl.No.703 and thereby brought under the purview of the Endowments Department and is under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. If the petitioner is disputing the notification of the temple 4 as public temple he has to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87(1) of the Act. It is further contended that at present the temple is being managed by the family with surname "Pillalamarri varu" and that the temple has got 4 shops constructed in front of the temple, which were leased out on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- each, besides the temple is having a function hall i.e Kalyanamandapam adjacent to the temple with two floors which is being given for functions and that an income of Rs. 3,00,000/- being realized on the same per annum and in order to bring the said temple management into the fold of the Endowments Department and to stream line the management of the said temple, she recommended to appoint the 3rd respondent as Single Trustee to the said Institution. Basing on the report, the 1st respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Single Trustee to the said temple as per the Act with instructions to handover complete charge of accounts, records etc., of the temple to this respondent and to take immediate action to safeguard the institution and its properties. The same was communicated to the petitioner under acknowledgement, requesting to handover the charge of records, accounts etc., but the previous trustee failed to hand over the same to this respondent and on the other hand endorsed on the said order copy that the said temple is a private temple and not belongs to Endowments Department. As per the said appointment as Single Trustee the 3rd respondent took oath of office and secrecy in the presence of Inspector, Endowments Department, Tenali on 16.11.2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained status quo. It is the bounden duty of the any trustee of the temple to 5 submit yearly statutory returns like income and expenditure and obtain budge sanctions, and to get audit of the accounts through LF Audit etc., The petitioner never disclosed about the income and expenditure of the said temple to the departmental authorities and never obtained permission for the expenditure.
6. It is further contended that the decree in O.S.No.233 of 1958, dated 06.01.1954 is between the Pillalamarri family for rendition of accounts between the plaintiffs and defendants. Thereafter by virtue of the Act 30/87 Sri Bala Tripurasundari Ammavari Temple was notified under Section 6 (c) of the Act by the Commissioner of Endowments Department dated 12.11.1987. As such the temple is a public temple. Further, the petitioner has written the words "Right of Admission is Reserved by the Management", after receipt of the orders of the 1st respondent dated 23.10.2012 for the sake of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Perused the record.
8. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Radhakanta Deb and Another v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa"1, wherein it was held as follows:-
"14. Thus, on a conspectus of the authorities mentioned above, the following tests may be laid down as providing sufficient guidelines to determine on the facts of each case whether an endowment is of a private or of a public nature:1
AIR 1981 SC 798 6 (1) Where the origin of the endowment cannot be ascertained, the question whether the user of the temple by members of the public is as of right;
(2) The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body of persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not retain any control over the management. Allied to this may be a circumstance when the evidence shows that there is provision for a scheme to be framed by associating the members of the public at large;
(3) Where, however, a document is available to prove the nature and origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that the control and management of the temple is retained with the founder of his descendants, and that extensive propert5ies are dedicated for the purpose of maintenance of the temple belonging to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the endowment was of a private nature;
(4) Whether the evidence shows that the founder of the endowment did not make any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by members of the public to the temple, this would be an important intrinsic circumstance to indicate the Private nature of the endowment."
9. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents in G.O.Ms.No.376, dated 20.03.1969, which deals with preparation and publication of list of institutions and endowments on the basis of income, which reproduced hereunder:
2. The lists shall be exhibited on the notice boards of the offices of the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the charitable or religious institution or endowment or math included in the list is situate or the charitable or religious institution to which the specific endowment included in the list is attached, is situate.
3. Information in respect of every addition to, or deletion from the list of any charitable or religious institution or endowment or math or the alteration made by the Commissioner in the classification of an institution of endowment in the list shall be communicated the concerned trustee or trustees or 7 Mathadhipathi, as the case may be. Such addition or deletion or alteration made by the Commissioner shall also be published in the manner laid down in rule 1."
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings dated 12.11.1987 does not satisfy the mandatory ingredients of publication of a notification as contemplated under the provisions of the statute, since the same is not in accordance with law, the same cannot be permitted to be taken as a shelter to contend that the temple was published under the provision of the Act. The letter dated 27.05.1998 in L.Dis.No.A1/4615/98 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur since is a valid document, which shows the correct factual position, the deponent at the category of Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur cannot be permitted to contend that the letter issued by his predecessor as 'so called', which in fact is a correct and valid document.
11. The respondents have not filed any supportive documents to substantiate their plea along with counter affidavit, except claiming that Sri Bala Tripurasundari Ammavari Temple, Tenali is published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act vide proceedings of Commissioner dated 12.11.1987 of Sl.No.703 and thereby brought under the purview of the Endowments Department and is under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. Further, the issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur dated 27.05.1998 would show the factual aspects, but same is simply denied by the respondents. Admittedly, the idol installation programme taken place on 8 03.06.1990 and it is a private temple for the "Pillalmarrivari family". The 3rd respondent levelled various allegations that the temple have four shops and one Kalyanamandapam adjacent to the temple and getting income from it, but valid piece of paper is placed to substantiate his contention. In the absence of such valid documents, the respondents cannot claim any right over the subject temple as a public property.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents categorically contended that the 3rd respondent has took charge to administer the temple, in the meantime the petitioner has obtained status quo in this writ petition. However, if the petitioner had any grievance over the issue, he can proceed in accordance with law before the Tribunal as per the Act for redressal of his grievance, instead of inviting orders in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. In the instant case, the respondents have not placed any bonafide material to substantiate their plea, except made allegations against the petitioner in the counter-affidavit itself. Further, it is very clear as per proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner vide L.Dis.No.A1/4615/98, dated 27.05.1998, the temple was not published under 6(c)(ii) of Endowment Act and also not registered under provisions of the Endowments Act. In view of the same, the respondents have no authority to interfere with the administration of a private temple. The petitioner has produced a copy of the decree in O/S.No.233 of 1958, dated 06.01.1964, wherein it is mentioned in Clause 1 "that the plaint schedule property be declared to be the trust property 9 set apart by the ancestors of both parties of suit for installing Diety of their 'Kula Devata' of Sri Bala Tripura Sundari Ammavaru" and further at Clause IV in para 9 "that the temple to be constructed by a Snagham be a private temple of the members of the Pillalamarrivari families and that the strangers do have no right of worship except with the permission of the secretary or president". Therefore, is very clear that the subject temple is purely a private temple maintained by Pillalamarrivari family. The petitioner has also placed on record the photographs of the temple. Therefore, this Court presumed that the subject temple is a private temple as per the evidence placed on record and further as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Radhakantha Deb's case (cited supra) the respondents have no locus standi or an authority to interfere with the affairs of the private temple. Therefore, question of directing the petitioner to approach the tribunal for redressal of his grievance as contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents does not arise.
14. It is made it clear that the respondents failed to produce sufficient proof to show that the temple is under Section 6(c) of the Act, so also not produced any record to show that the temple had four shops and kalyanamandapam and getting income therein, which is not accounted for. Since the subject temple is declared as a private temple for the 'Pillalamarri family', the respondents have no authority to interfere with the affairs of the private temple.
10
15. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, while declaring the proceedings vide Rc.No.A8/2855/2012, dated 23.10.2012 issued by the 1st respondent appointing the 3rd respondent as Single Trustee of the temple as illegal, arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 15.11.2024.
KK 11 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.35313 OF 2012 Date: 15.11.2024 KK