Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.RAIKOTE, LINGARAJA RATH
Teki Venkata Ratnam - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist - Respondent
Decided On : 10-04-96
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT - JURISDICTION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE TEMPLE - RES JUDICATA - TEMPLE ORIGINALLY FOUNDED AS PRIVATE - BECOMING PUBLIC OVER TIME - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (1966 Act) to decide whether Sri Pandurangaswamy temple, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam is a public or a private temple. The challenge was based on an earlier order passed by the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam in O. P. No. 1/1940 on 24-10-1941 declaring the temple as private.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction to decide whether the temple was public or private under Section 77 of the 1966 Act and Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (1987 Act). The court also held that the principle of res judicata did not apply as a temple being private is not a static concept and in course of time a private temple may become public.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction to decide whether the temple was public or private? 2. Whether the principle of res judicata applied to bar the Deputy Commissioner from deciding the issue?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction to decide whether the temple was public or private under Section 77 of the 1966 Act and Section 87 of the 1987 Act. The court reasoned that the Deputy Commissioner was vested with the power to decide whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment, and whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment. The court further reasoned that since the 1966 Act and the 1987 Act were designed to regulate the administration of public religious institutions or endowments, the Deputy Commissioner had the necessary jurisdiction to decide whether the temple was public or private. 2. The court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply to bar the Deputy Commissioner from deciding the issue. The court reasoned that a temple being private is not a static concept and in course of time a private temple may become public. The court further reasoned that the decision of the District Judge in O. P. No. 1/1940 declaring the temple as private was final only for the period prior to 1941 and did not prevent the Deputy Commissioner from deciding whether the temple had become public after 1941.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal with costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioners-appellants filed W. P. No. 10824 of 1987 questioning the notice issued to them by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, kakinada - 1st respondent in O. A. No. l of 1987 on 6-6-1987 purportedly under section 77 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short the 1966 Act) to decide whether Sri Pandurangaswamy temple, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam is a public or a private temple as also the order passed by the first respondent in L. A. No. 36/87 in O. A. No. 1/87 on 20-7-1987 deciding that he has jurisdiction to decide the question. The writ petition was filed questioning the jurisdiction of the first respondent to issue the notice. The basis of the challenge is an earlier order passed by the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam in O. P. No. 1/1940 on 24-10-1941 declaring the temple as private. The writ petition having been dismissed on 31-12-1993,the present appeal has been preferred.
( 2 ) NARRATION of the background of the facts leading to the present appeal is necessary since not only the litigation spans about20 years, but also because of the sheer number of the cases and the applications filed in them from time to time. It appears, notice was issued by the Inspector of Endowments on 8-10-1975 to the executive authority of Sri Pandurangaswamy temple, chilakalapudi calling upon the temple to be registered under Sections 38 and 39 of the 1966 Act. W. P. No. 5480 of 1976 was filed by the predecessor of the appellants challenging the notice. That petition was disposed of on 24-11-1976 recording the submission of Mr. T. H. B. Chalapathi,learned counsel for the petitioners that the Executive Officer (writ petitioner therein) had been advised to raise the necessary dispute by filing an application before the Deputy commissioner of Endowments,kakinada under Section 77 of the1966 Act and to contend that the temple does not fall within the purview of the Act being a private one, and hence is not obliged to be registered under Sections 38 and 39 of that Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the case submitted that steps would be taken to file the petition before the Deputy Commissioner of endowments within two weeks of the date of the order. An appeal, W. A. No. 20 of 1977 was carried by the writ petitioners which was disposed of on 20-1-1977 declining to interfere, taking the view that the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the learned single Judge was on the instructions of the petitioners for which reason the appeal was to fail. While dismissing the appeal,six weeks time was allowed in the judgment to take such steps as they like. Admittedly, the writ petitioners did not file application under section 77 of the 1966 Act While the matter stood thus, the Assistant commissioner, in his proceedings Rc. No. D/13602/77 dt. 14-11-1977, appointed the Inspector of Endowments, Machilipatnam as the Chief Festival officer for the festival of Karthika Sudha Ekadasi from 20-11-1977 to 26-11-1977, the order was passed in consideration of the report of the person in management, Sri Keti Satyanarayana. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was assailed before the joint Commissioner of Endowments,hyderabad in r. P. No. 168 of 1977 who passed orders on 19-10-1979 that as the order of the district Judge/krishna ino. P. No. l/40 had not been set a side by any competent court or authority, that judgment declaring the temple as private was still in force and that respondent No2 in that case i. e. , Keti Satyanarayana or the Asst. Commissioner were at liberty to move the Deputy Commissioner under section 77 of the 1966 Act for declaration that the temple is public one in view of the changed circumstances and until such declaration is obtained, the Asst. Commissioner cannot interfere with the administration of the temple. The appellants admittedly had not filed application under Section 77 of the 1966 Act a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
