IMPORTANT POINT
The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments has power to enquire and decide any dispute whether a temple is a public Temple or a private one under Section 87 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. His decision has an overriding effect under Section 160 of the Act.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987-Sections 2(22), 2(27) r/w 1(3)(b), 87 r/w 160-Power of Deputy Commissioner of Endowments-Has he power to enquire and decide any dispute as to whether a temple is a public temple or a private one under the Act? (Yes)-Decree passed by District Court in 1940 -Whether it was possible for Deputy Commissioner to invalidate or override it and pass order under Section 87? (Yes)-Under Section 160 of the Act)-Appeal dismissed-Notice under Section 77 of 1966 Act rightly continued under Section 87 of 1987 Act. (Para 6)
       Held : We have no good reason or valid ground to take a view other than the one taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in this regard. Thus, having due regard to all aspects, we are of the view that the Deputy Commissioner has power and jurisdiction to decide whether the temple in question is a public temple or private one. (Para 7)
       Held further : As per the decree passed by the District Court in O.P. No. 1 of 1940, the temple in question was declared as private on 24.10.1941 and a dispute has arisen whether it continued to be a private temple or it has become a public temple. Notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 87 of the 1987 Act. It cannot be said that no enquiry can be held and decision taken as to the character of the temple. Further, as per Section 160, the Act has overriding effect. Notwithstanding inter alia a decree of a court, the provisions of the 1987 Act will prevail. (Para 9)
       Held finally : This viewed from any angle, this appeal, in our opinion, is devoid of any merit. Hence it is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-In this appeal, in the light of the contentions raised and submissions made, the following question arises for consideration and decision -

"Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments has power to enquire and decide any dispute whether a temple is a public temple or a private one under Section 87 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987" ?

2. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are: It appears, a notice was issued by the Inspector of Endowments on 8.10.1975 to the Executive Officer of Shri Panduranga Vitthal Swami temple, Chilakalapudi to register the said temple under Sections 38 & 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short the 1966 Act ). Challenging the same, W.P. No. 5480 of 1976 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.11.1976 placing on record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been advised to raise a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the 1966 Act to contend that the temple did not fall within the purview of the said Act, being a private one. However, later the petitioner filed a writ appeal against the order made in the aforementioned writ petition. The writ appeal was dismissed, noticing the statement made by the learned counsel in the writ petition as stated above but granted six weeks time to the petitioner to take steps as advised. The petitioner did not file application under Section 77 of the 1966 Act. While the matter stood thus, the Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 14.11.1977 appointed the Inspector of Endowments, Machhlipatnam as the Chief Festival Officer for Kartika Shudha Ekadashi from 20.11.1977 to 26.11.1977. In the R.P.No.168 of 1977, the Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, set aside the said order on the ground that the order by the District Court, Krishna, in O.P. No. 1 of 1940 declaring the temple as private temple, was in force and as such Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the order appointing Inspector of Endowments as the Festival Officer, while reserving liberty to the parties to move the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the 1966 Act for declaration that the temple is a public in view of the changed circumstances. Thereafter, a notice was issued in O.A. No. 1 of 1987 under Section 87 (wrongly quoting as under Section 77 of the 1966 Act) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the 1987 Act ) to decide whether the said temple was a public temple or not. The appellants and some others challenged the very jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to decide such a question. However, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 20.7.1987 held that he had jurisdiction to do so under Section 87 of the 1987 Act. Assailing the said order, writ petition No.10824 of 1987 was filed. Before a learned Single Judge, it was urged that under Section 77 of the 1966 Act there was no power to enquire and decide whether a temple was a public temple or a private one and that as on the date of the issue of the impugned notice, 1966 Act had been repealed. Repelling the said submission, the respondent pointed out that since the 1987 Act had come into force by then, under Section 87 of the said Act, the Deputy Commissioner was competent to hold enquiry and decide the question. The learned Single Judge, accepting the submission made by the respondent, dismissed the writ petition holding that the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide as to whether the temple was a public temple or a private one. The appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 89 of 1994 questioning the validity and correctness of the said order. The Division Bench of the High Court, after noticing in sufficient detail succinctly stated about the previous litigation of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document