S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the successor Rajah of Venkatagiri. Nellore district. It appears in 1760 a temple was established by the then Rajah of venkatagiri in the name of Sri Kasiviswanatha Swamy vari temple. In 1939 the erstwhile Endowment Board included this temple in the list of Public temples and attempted to take over the same as a public temple. Aggrieved by the action of the Board, the Rajah filed (O. P. No. 69/40 on the file of the district Court, Nellore under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments act 1927. That litigation was comprised between the Rajah and the Board and a comprise decree was passed declaring the temple in question as a private temple on 7-8-1945. Since then the petitioner has been in possession. and management of the said temple. On 6-4-1976 a notification was issued under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religous institutions and Endowments Act (Act 17 of 1960) enlisting the said temple as public temple. Notwithstanding the said notification the petitioner continued to be in the management of the temple, as he came to know of it only in September, 1983 when he received the memo from the third respondent informing him about the Gazette notification of My 15, 1976 enlisting the said temple as a public temple and proposing to appoint non- hereditary trustee to the said temple The petitioner filed W. P. No. 8425/83 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint non-hereditary trustee to the said temple. When he came to know of the said Gazette notification dated July 15, 1976 issued under Section 6 (c) (ii) notifying the temple as public temple, he also filed writ petition No. 9994 of 1983 challenging the validity of the said notification. As the questions involed in these two writ petitions are common, they are heard and disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE first respondent filed the counter-affidavit stating that the temple of Sri Kasiviswanadha Swamy is a public temple in all respects. The notification was duly published under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Act by the commissioner, Endowments on 6-4-1976. In view of that notification, the provisions of the Act 17 of 1966 are applicable. It is further stated that the temple in question satisfies all the conditions of being a public temple mentioned in Section 2 (26) of the Act. It has all the requisite charateristics of a public temple, therefore, it was rightly notified as a public temple. It is admitted that the issue whether the temple in question is a public temple or private temple was settled by compromise decree dated 7-8-1945 in O. P. No. 69 of 1940 on the file of the District Court, Nellore, but it is stated that the board was not competent to enter into the compriomise with the Rajah. The District Courts can modify or set aside the order, but could not record a compromise, as such the said compromise decree, it is alleged, is void. It is further stated that the compromise is detrimental to the public interest, and is not binding on the department. In view of Section 36 of the Act the provisions of Chapter-III of the Act prevails notwithstanding any decree or order of the Court, therefore, under Sec. 15 of the Act notwithstanding the standing the compromise decree the department has power to appoint non hereditary trusttee. It is contended that the petitioner himself approached the department, requesting the department to recognise him a hereditary trustee after the death of his father on 1-6-1971. Again he filed another application on 22-11-1971 for the same purpose and on 31-12-1971 the hereditary trusteeship of the petitioner was recognised. It is asserted that though the temple was found by the Rajah, by throwing it open for benefit of the public, by endowing the properties of large extents by Rajah of Venkatagiri and the successive rulers it was converted into a public temple. Merely because the petitioner is maintaining and managing the temple, it cannot be treated as a priv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document