Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gangisetty Maddileti, Kurnool Dist., 2 ... vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By ... on 21 February, 2025
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.7589 of 2013
Between:
#Gangisetty Maddileti, Kurnool Dist., & 2 Otrs. and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
$The State Of A P Rep By Prl Secretary Endow Hyd 3 ...RESPONDENT(S)
Otrs and Others
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 21.02.2025
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.7589 of 2013
% 21.02.2025
# Between:
#Gangisetty Maddileti, Kurnool Dist., & 2 Otrs. and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
$The State Of A P Rep By Prl Secretary Endow Hyd 3 ...RESPONDENT(S)
Otrs and Others
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Rajasekhar
! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred: 1. 2011 (1) ALT 274
2. AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1202
3
APHC010609572013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7589/2013
Between:
Gangisetty Maddileti, Kurnool Dist., & 2 Otrs. and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of A P Rep By Prl Secretary Endow Hyd 3 ...RESPONDENT(S)
Otrs and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P RAJASEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing proceedings in Memo No A2/6548/2011/E0s Estt dated 20 09 2011 served on 24.02.2013 and the cconsequential onsequential proceedings in Memo No A2/3059/1991Admn dated 28.12.2012 issued by the 3rd Respondent is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional violative of Sections 15 and 17 of the A P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 and violative of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to issue a certificate to the Petitioners as Members of the Founder Family of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Temple Rudravaram Village and Mandal Kurnool DistrictDistri in the interest of justice and pass......4
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners great grandfather Gangisetty Timmaiah Setty constructed a temple of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy at Rudravaram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in his own site, with his own funds with a conviction and belief that by such funding and serving Lord Sri Satyanarayana Swamy, hereditary would be placed with good progeny and prosperity and also constructed a Choultry, Residential Quarters abutting the temple for Archakas. Petitioners' great grandfather also created endowments for the due maintenance of the temple and executed a registered Trust Deed whereby and where-under donated vast properties for performance of Nitya Dhupa Deepa Naivedyam and Utsavams in temple. After the death of the said founder, Sri G. Anjaneyulu, who was the petitioners' grandfather served the temple as Hereditary Trustee during his life time. Further, the Petitioners' father G. Venkateswarlu succeeded to the trustee and managed the temple during his life time and he passed away in the year 1990. The petitioners continue to manage the affairs of the temple as being the Members of the Founder family. It is further stated that earlier the petitioners' father filed O.A.No. 14 of 1991 under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act 30 of 1987 praying to declare that petitioners family has right to honour and privilege to serve the Lord Sri Satyanarayana Swamy as Hereditary Trustee by managing the temple, choultry and the endowments of the temple and also other honours etc. The 3rd Respondent served proceedings dated: 28.12.2012 along the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 20.09.2011 whereby and 5 where-under informing the petitioners that the 2nd Respondent issued proceedings to tag on Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Rudravaram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District to the 4th Respondent Group Temples and requested the 3rd Respondent to submit a report whether the orders are implemented or not, else, disciplinary action will be taken against him. It is stated that the petitioners are not served with the notice by the respondents before passing the order by the 2nd respondent dated 20.09.2011. on information by the 3rd respondent and on their request the 3rd respondent served the impugned proceedings to the petitioners on 24.02.2013 informing that the 4th respondent will take possession of the Sri Satyanarayana Swamy temple, its properties endowed by petitioners great grandfather and will conduct public auction etc. no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent before passing the impugned order. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. This Court, vide order, dated 14.03.2013, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted status quo in WPMP No.9522 of 2013, as under: "......WPMP No.9522 of 2013
The impugned order dated 20.09.2011 does not disclose reasons for tagging on the subject institution to other institution.
In the circumstances, status quo as on today shall be maintained until further orders"
4. The 2nd respondent filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the Petitioners father's hereditary right might have been declared by the 2nd Respondent office in the year, 1972, but the 6 rights of the Petitioners as founder family members were not declared till now. They only filed 0.A.No.14/91 and the same was dismissed on the ground that the counsel for the Petitioners has filed a memo that they are pursuing the matter before this Respondent office. As such, without any declaration as member of founder family by the 2nd Respondent i.e., Deputy Commissioner, the Petitioners have no right to say that they are entitled to administer and manage the temple without proceedings of the 2nd Respondent office. It is stated that inspite of that neither the Petitioners nor their father have sought any such declaration before 2nd Respondent office. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot be considered by this Respondent office as a member of founder family and no rights are attached to them in administration and control of the subject temple. It is further stated unless and until such a declaration is made by the 2nd respondent office in a due process of law, the petitioners cannot claim such rights over the subject temple. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, argued that, the petitioners being the Members of the Founder family are entitled to administer and manage the temple of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy. Admittedly their father late Gangisetty Venkateswarlu was declared as Hereditary Trustee by the 2 nd respondent on 7 19.11.1974 under the provisions of Act No.17 of 1966 and he continued to manage and administer the subject temple after the commencement of Act 30 of 1987 and thereafter it is under the petitioners' administration and management.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the amendment to Section 17(1) of the Act 30 of 1987 as amended by Act 33 of 2007, the petitioners automatically come within the definition of 'founder' and they are entitled to such certificate/recognition from the 3 rd respondent, more so, in the absence of any dispute, as to the status of founder family member.
8. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on A.V. Ranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others 1 , wherein the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that "By virtue of amendment to section 17(1) by Act 33/2007 w.e.f. 03.01.2008, the persons who was recognized as hereditary trustee under replead Act 17/1966 automatically comes within definition of 'Founder' and thus entitled to be appointed as one of the trustees.
And in Para 19 - Plain reading of S. 87 (1)(h) shows that a decision is necessary only where there is any dispute as to the question whether a person is founder or a member from the family of the founder of an institution or endowment.
(ii) In another case reported in Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr.Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and others2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para-26 that :
1
2011 (1) ALT 274 2 AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1202 8 The aim to the rule of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, these rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. The concept of natural justice, indeed, has undergone a change with the passage of time, but still the time tested rules, namely, are (i) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet essse judex propria causa) and (ii) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing (audi alteram partem). At the same time, action of the authority must be held in good faith without bias and not arbitrary or unreasonable.
9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as one of the Trustees subject to qualifications and they automatically come within the meaning of 'Founder' as stated in the above provisions and hence they are continued to manage and administer the subject temple. But without issuing any notice or opportunity the impugned order was passed, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
10 Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, even there is any founder family member to a temple, the appointment of an Executive officer can be made as per the provisions of the Act. He submits that, the Petitioners' father's hereditary right is declared by the then 2nd respondent and not that of the petitioners'. Without any such declaration as Founder Family Member, they are not entitled to administer and manage the temple. Petitioners cannot be considered as a Founder Family Member and no rights are attached to them to administer the temple and hence opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 9
11. Perused the material on record.
12 Admittedly, in the year 1918, the petitioners' grandfather Gangisetty Timmaiah Setty constructed the temple of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy at Rudravaram Village and Mandal and he executed a registered Trust Deed on 19.11.1921 whereby and where-under donated vast properties for due performance of Nitya Dhuypa Deepa Naivedyam and Utsavams in temple. He also authorized his descendants to constitute specific committee and manage the affairs of the temple with the help of the said committee. After the death of said founder, Sri G.Anjaneyulu, who was the petitioners' grandfather, the petitioners' father G Venkateswarlu succeeded to the trusteeship and managed the temple during his lifetime and he passed away in the year 1990. Since then the petitioners continue to manage the affairs of the temple as being the Members of the Founder Family.
13. As stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Section 17(1) of the Act 30 of 1987 as amended by Act 33 of 2007 the petitioners are automatically come within the definition of 'Founder'. It is pertinent to mention here the above section, which reads as under:
17. Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term.
(1)In making the appointment of trustees under Section 15, the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the religious denomination or any section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder:[Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees.10
[Explanation 1. - 'Founder' means,-(a)in respect of Institution or Endowments existing at the commencement of this Act, the person who was recognized as Hereditary Trustee under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or a Member of his family recognized by the Competent Authority;
(b)In respect of an Institution or Endowment established after such commencement, the person who has founded such Institution or Endowment or a member of his family and recognized as such by the competent authority.] Explanation II. - "Member of the family of the founder" means children, grand children and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force and declared or recognized as such by the relevant appointing authority.
Explanation III. - Those persons who founded temples by collecting donations partly or fully from the public as well as those who founded them on public lands shall not be recognized as founder trustees by any means"
14. For proper appreciation, it is to refer to section 87(1) (h) of the Act as amended by Act 27 of 2002 which reads as under:
87. Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters :
(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question:
(a)
(b)
c)
(d)
e)
(f)
(g)
(h) Whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment.
15. A plain reading of Section 87 (1) (h) shows that a decision is necessary only where there is any dispute as to the question whether a 11 person is founder or a member from the family of the founder of an institution or endowment.
16. In the instant case, admittedly there is no such dispute as to the petitioners status as Members of the Founder Family, they need not approach the Endowments Tribunal seeking necessary relief under the above referred section and on the other hand there is already a decision in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the repealed Act 17 of 1966. Hence Section 87 (1) (h) in my considered opinion has no application to the instant case. But it is observed that the respondents without issuing any notice insisting the petitioners for taking possession of the temple along with properties. So, in view of the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to disposed of the writ petition while declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings and consequential proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary.
17. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in Memo No.A2/6548/2011/EOs Estt, dated 20.09.2011 issued by the 2 nd respondent and the consequential proceedings in Memo No.A2/3059/1991-Admn dated 28.12.2012 issued by the 3 rd respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the 3rd respondent is directed to conduct enquiry after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and issue a certificate to them as Members of the Founder Family of the subject temple within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12
18. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 21 -02-2025 Gvl 13 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7589 of 2013 Date : 21.02.2025 Gvl