Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, V.MADHAVA RAO
Bheema Ramaswamy - Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-09-72
ENDOWMENT - REVISION PETITION - JURISDICTION - ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 77 (2) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1966 - WHETHER REVISABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 82 OF THE ACT - YES
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed an application under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (the Act) before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool for a declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of Sri Sadvarthi Maryam, Midthur village, Nandikotkur Kurnool District and also for a declaration that the schedule lands do not constitute endowment. During the pendency of that application, I. A. No. 1 of 1971 was filed under Section 77 (2) for appointment of Executive Officer to administer the affairs of the endowed property. The Deputy Commissioner appointed Sri Thirumala Naidu, Executive Officer of Group temples at Kurnool as custodian of Sadarvathi Manyam, Miduthur village, Nandikotkur Taluk, Kurnool District for its management and endowments attached to it pending the disposal of O. A. No. 80 of 1970. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition to the Joint Commissioner, Endowments, R. P. No. 129 of 1971. The Joint Commissioner, Endowments, by his order dated 30-12-1971 declined to hear the revision petition on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 (2) of the Act is not a decision under Section 77 in regard to which there is only a remedy of a suit. The court further held that the remedy against such an order is by way of revision to the Commissioner under Section 82 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 (2) of the Act is a decision under Section 77 in regard to which there is only a remedy of a suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Sections 77, 78 and 82 of the Act and held that Section 78 provides a remedy of suit only against a decision finally given by the Deputy Commissioner deciding any dispute relating to any question referred to in Section 77 (1) of the Act. The court further held that Section 82 provides a remedy of revision to the Commissioner against any order or an interim order made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 (2) and (4) respectively.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner dated 30-12-1971. The court also issued a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Commissioner to restore R. P. No. 129 of 1971 to his file and hear and dispose of the Revision petition in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of the joint Commissioner. Endowments, made in R. P. No. 129 of 1971 on 30-12-1971.
( 2 ) THE facts in brief which are not in dispute are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, hereafter called " the Act " before the Dy. Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool for a declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of Sri Sadvarthi Maryam, Midthur village, Nandikotkur Kurnool District and also for a declaration that the schedule lands do not constitute endowment.
( 3 ) DURING the pendency of that application I. A. No. 1 of 1971 was filed under Section 77 (2) for appointment of Executive Officer to administer the affairs of the endowed property. That I. A. was filed by the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner appointed Sri Thirumala Naidu, Executive Officer of Group temples at Kurnool by an order dated 2-12-1971 as custodian of Sadarvathi Manyam, Miduthur village, Nandikotkur Taluk, Kurnool District for its management and endowments attached to it pending the disposal of O. A. No. 80 of 1970. The petitioners were directed to hand over charge of records and accounts of the property attached to it to the Executive Officer so appointed on 22-12-1971.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition to the Joint Commissioner, Endowments, R. P. No. 129 of 1971. The Joint Commissioner, Endowments, by his order dated 30-12-1971 declined to hear the revision petition on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. The writ petition is filed to challenge the correctness of this order.
( 5 ) THE principal contention of Sri S. V. Kondapi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that Section 82 of the Act confers jurisdiction upon the Commissioner to hear revision petition against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 (2) of the Act and therefore the Joint Commissioner erred in declining to hear the revision petition.
( 6 ) IN order to understand the implications of this argument it is necessary to read Sections 77, 78 and 82 of the Act. Section 77 : (1) The Deputy Commissioner 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) Whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment ; (b) Whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment ; (c) Whether trusteeship is hereditary or not ; (d) Whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment ; (e) Whether any property is a specific endowment ; (f) Whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour. Emoluments or prerequisite in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter ; (g) Whether any office holder or servant is holding or has held his office or service hereditarily ; (h) Whether any office or service is of a hereditary nature ; (i) Where a permanent or temporary vacancy occurs in the office of a hereditary trustee, as to the person who is entitled to succeed to such office ; (j) Whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses ; or (k) Where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character, or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character
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
