Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Lokanadham. Nandikeswararao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 September, 2021
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7306 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A3/3655/2020 Adm., dated 31.12.2020 appointing an Executive Officer to Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Patha (Old) Srikakulam C.B.Road, Srikakulam Town & District.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the said temple is a private temple constructed by the forefathers of the petitioners, and as such, no Executive Officer can be appointed to the said temple.
3. Sri Solomon Raju, learned counsel appearing for Sri Umasankar Lokanadham, learned counsel for the petitioners would raise a few additional grounds in the course of his arguments. It is contended by Sri Solomon Raju that by virtue of the appointment, the Endowments Department is seeking to take over the private lands of the petitioners, which have already been sold away and also the lands on which, the houses of the petitioners are presently situated. He submits that such a course of action is not permissible. He further submits that the petitioners have to be treated as members of the founder family, and as such, no appointment of an Executive Officer can be done.
2
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple was published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Endowments Act'), vide proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department in J3/141/99, dated 14.12.1999, and that the temple and its properties were also registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, vide proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam in R.Dis.No.A2/1616/2012, dated 23.11.2012, as the said temple was treated as a public temple. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that this temple is owner of Ac.9.21 cents of Urban Land in Srikakulam Town, which is being alienated by the petitioners without any right and title and to ensure that such alienation should not be carried on and to protect the property of the temple, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments had made a recommendation for appointment of an Executive Officer. In view of the said recommendations, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vishakapatnam had issued the impugned proceedings appointing an Executive Officer for protection of the properties of the temple.
5. In view of the fact that the temple has already been published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Endowments Act in the year 1999, the contention of the petitioners that the temple is a 3 private temple cannot be accepted. The petitioners have also not chosen to take any steps to seek any declaration that the said publication of the temple under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Endowments Act is incorrect or illegal. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the temple is a private temple cannot be accepted.
6. The contention of the petitioners that appointment of an Executive Officer cannot be allowed, as the private lands of the petitioners are sought to be taken over is also misplaced. Any Executive Officer appointed under the provisions of the Endowments Act is empowered and entitled to take custody and possession of all the assets of the deity. Steps would be taken by the Executive Officer to ensure that the properties which belongs to the temple are not alienated. It would always be open to the petitioners to resist any attempts to take over the lands, which belongs to them and the appointment of an Executive Officer does not in any manner affect their rights.
7. The further contention that the petitioners are members of the founder family and have to be consulted before appointment of an Executive Officer is also misplaced, for the following reasons.
Firstly, there is no requirement for consulting any member of a founder family before appointing an Executive Officer. Secondly, nothing has been placed before this Court to show that any of the petitioners had been recognized as a 4 hereditary trustee under the A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or as a member of the founder family under the Endowments Act, 1987.
8. Therefore, the contention that certain rights are attached to the status of the members of founder family cannot be accepted.
9. This Court, would still have to take notice of the fact that the Executive Officer has been appointed by the Deputy Commissioner. The temple is published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Endowments Act, which means the income of the temple is less than Rs.2,00,000/-. Proviso to Section 29 of the Endowments Act, 1987 stipulates that it shall be competent for the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer to any institution having income of less than Rs.2,00,000/- by recording reasons in writing. In the present case, the Executive Officer has been appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, which is beyond the authority of the Deputy Commissioner.
10. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Vishakapatnam did not have the authority to appoint an Executive Officer. However, this order shall not preclude the Commissioner, Endowments Department to take necessary steps for protection of the property of the temple including the appointment of any Executive Officer, for the reasons that may be recorded in writing. There shall be no order as to costs. 5
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
09.09.2021 SDP 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.7306 of 2021 09-09-2021 SDP