Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G.Raveen Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 August, 2021

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                        W.P.No.27781 of 2018


ORDER:

The 4th Respondent Veerasaiva Anna Satram, Srisailam had obtained land from the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam for construction of a choultry for members of the Veerasaiva community to stay at Srisailam, under an agreement dated 16.08.1984.

2. The salient terms of the agreement were that even though the choultry would be constructed by the Veerasaiva Anna Satram, the control and management of the choultry would be with the Devasthanam and the president of the choultry would not make any alterations and additions to the choultry without the previous permission of the Commissioner of Endowments Department. In the event of any violation of the terms of the agreement or failure to comply with the directions or orders of the Devasthanam or in the event of mis-management, it would be open to the Devasthanam to resume management of the choultry.

3. After obtaining the land under the above agreement, the Veerasaiva Anna Satram constructed a choultry by obtaining funds and donations from the devotees. It is the case of the petitioners that their father had contributed huge funds for the construction of the choultry, which was named as Sri Sharnabasaweshwara Sadasivaiah Veerasaiva Anna Satram Building. Apart from contributing funds, the father of the petitioners is also said to have constructed a room, in the choultry, in the year 1991, and the same was opened on 05.04.1991 with a plaque showing that the room was built by the father of the petitioners. After the demise of their father, the petitioners continued to take an interest in the 2 RRR,J.

choultry. However, the 4th respondent sought to demolish the rooms in the choultry including the room constructed by the father of the petitioners in the year 2016. Thereupon, the petitioners had issued legal notice to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam and to the 4th Respondent Veerasaiva Anna Satram to desist from such demolition. As no response was obtained, the petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P.No.45887 of 2016, which is said to be pending. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent completed demolition of the rooms in the choultry and reconstructed the choultry without obtaining any permissions required under the agreement of August 1984. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the 5th respondent, as the president of the 4th respondent, had been violating the terms of the agreement including submission of accounts etc. All these illegalities were being informed to the 2 nd and 3rd respondents. As these respondents were not taking any action against the 5th respondent in relation to these illegalities, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to go into all these issues and take necessary action.

4. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The first objection raised by the 5th respondent is that this dispute is relating to a public society and the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy of approaching the District Court under Section 23 of the Public Societies Act and as such the writ petition would not be maintainable. The second ground raised is that the demolition took place in the year 1991 and as such, filing of writ petition in the year 2018, after a huge delay of time, is clearly hit by laches. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had also produced the plan attached to the application for reconstruction of choultry, in which the 3 RRR,J.

Executive Officer had also signed. Apart from this the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated 05.06.2017 giving necessary permissions for the demolition and reconstruction of the choultry was also produced.

5. The contention of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that the writ petition is hit by laches and is also not maintainable on account of availability of alternative remedy, is rejected. The controversy raised herein is not in relation to the internal affairs of the society but on the question of violation of the agreement of the society with the Executive Officer of the Temple. As such, the provisions of Section 23 of the Public Societies Act would not be applicable. On the question of laches, the demolition of choultry was not done in the year 1991 as contended by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel. In fact, the choultry itself was built in 1991,and as such, the said issue also would not survive.

6. The sheet anchor of the contention of the petitioners is that the demolition and reconstruction of the choultry is without the permission of the Commissioner, Endowments and the same is violative of the agreement dated 16.08.1984. However, the proceedings dated 05.06.2017 issued by the said 3rd respondent-Executive Officer clearly shows that such permission was obtained from the Executive Officer. It is true that this is not the permission required to be obtained from the Commissioner Endowments. However, any violation of the terms of the agreement is a matter between the Devasthanam and the 4th respondent. Since, the fresh construction was made with the approval of the Devasthanam, the said clause does not require any further consideration. As far as the other allegations relating to the mismanagement of the choultry and violation of the terms of the agreement are concerned, the 4 RRR,J.

said complaints are general in nature and it would not be appropriate to direct an enquiry unless specific instances are provided.

7. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioners to raise these issues, before the 2nd and 3rd respondents on providing specific instances, of misdoing or violation of the terms of the agreement dated 16.8.1984, against the 4 th and 5th Respondent.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 17th August, 2021 Js 5 RRR,J.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.27781 of 2018 17th August, 2021 Js