Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Tripuraneni Jyostnasri, Rep. by its G.P.A. Sri Kotha Satyanarayana & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts-I) Department, Secretariat & Others – Respondents
W.P.M.P. Nos. 24761 of 2013 & 42300 of 2014 in W.P. No. 25989 of 1996 & W.P. No. 6940 of 2009
Decided On : 06-04-2016
For the Petitioner:V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Government Pleader for Endowments, M. Adinarayana Raju, Advocate.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 – Section 6(b)(ii ) – There is no dispute that the Sangameswara Swamy Temple is a Grade II temple and is covered by Section 6(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the other temple Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple is covered by Section 6(c) of the Act and its income is less than Rs.50,000/ - On 29.06.1994, respondent No.7 in W.P.No.25989 of 1996, who is also respondent No.3 in W.P. No.6940 of 2009, claiming to be Hereditary Trustee of the above two temples and six other temples in Guntur District, approached the State Government to appoint a single Executive Officer to all the 8 temples claiming that his ancestors were Zamindars of Rachur and they had donated landed properties for maintenance of temples – Commissioner of Endowments vide letter No.G2/64717/91 dated 01.09.1994 submitted a report to the Government that out of eight temples, four temples were under the management of Hereditary Trustee, that the remaining four temples were under the control of the Executive Officers, that the income of the temples is more than Rs.5.00 lakhs and requested the Government to delete the eight temples from the groups which were under the charge of Executive Officers and requested to create a new group for these 8 temples of Rachur in Guntur District – Held, in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and others (2 supra), the Supreme Court stated that if an original decree itself is without jurisdiction and is hit by the doctrine coram non judice, it cannot be upheld on the ground that such objection was not taken at the initial, first appellate or second appellate stage – This principle is equally applicable to the proceedings Rc.No.A4/9154/96 dated 14.09.1996 of the respondent No.4 recognizing respondent No.7 as founder Trustee and since it is totally without jurisdiction, the fact that there is some delay in challenging it by way of an amendment petition (WPMP.No.24761 of 2013), is no ground to allow it to remain – Coming to W.P.No.6940 of 2009, I am of the opinion that the cause in the said Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication since it is admitted by both sides that after 2009, no exemption has been granted at the instance of respondent No.7 to the subject temples from the application of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is dismissed as infructuous – Without jurisdiction and null and void; and the actions of respondent No.1 in clubbing Sri Sangameswara Temple and Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple at Sangam Jagarlamudi with other six temples and forming them into one group and appointing an Executive Officer for them and also recognizing respondent No.7 as founder Trustee for them are declared null and void. The respondent No.7 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to petitioners. W.P.No.6940 of 2009 is dismissed. (Paras76, 77, 78 and79)
1. As parties to these Writ Petitions are common and subject matter of both cases is inter-related, these two Writ petitions are being disposed of together.
2. Sri Sangameswara Swamy Temple and Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple are located in Sangam Jagarlamudi Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.
3. There is no dispute that the Sangameswara Swamy Temple is a Grade II temple and is covered by Section 6(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the other temple Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple is covered by Section 6(c) of the Act and its income is less than Rs.50,000/-.
4. On 29.06.1994, respondent No.7 in W.P.No.25989 of 1996, who is also respondent No.3 in W.P. No.6940 of 2009, claiming to be Hereditary Trustee of the above two temples and six other temples in Guntur District, approached the State Government to appoint a single Executive Officer to all the 8 temples claiming that his ancestors were Zamindars of Rachur and they had donated landed properties for maintenance of temples.
5. The Commissioner of Endowments vide letter No.G2/64717/91 dated 01.09.1994 submitted a report to the Government that out of eight temples, four temples were under the management of Hereditary Trustee, that the remaining four temples were under the control of the Executive Officers, that the income of the temples is more than Rs.5.00 lakhs and requested the Government to delete the eight temples from the groups which were under the charge of Executive Officers and requested to create a new group for these 8 temples of Rachur in Guntur District.
6. Thereafter, vide G.O.Rt.No.1779 Revenue (Endts.I) Department dated 15.11.1994 the Government passed orders creating a new group of eight temples including the above two temples, with headquarters at Rachur and directed appointment of an Executive Officer Grade-I for this group of eight temples.
7. On coming to know of it, petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.25989 of 1996, represented by her G.P.A. holder, petitioner No.2 therein, made a representation on 18.01.1995 to the Commissioner of Endowments objecting to the above order of respondent no.1.
8. By proceedings No.G2/50039/96 dated 09.10.1996, the Commissioner of Endowments passed an order separating the above two temples Sangameswara Swamy Temple and Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple from the other group of six temples.
9. Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.25989 of 1996 again went before the State Government and challenged the decision dated 09.10.1996 of the Commissioner of Endowments.
10. The Government, vide Memo No.4500/Endts-I/95 dated 23.11.1996 set aside the order of the Commissioner and decided that the above two temples should not be separated from the other six temples, which had formed a group and all the eight temples should be treated as one group of temples.
11. The Memo No.4500/Endts-I/95 dated 23.11.1996 as well as G.O.Rt.No.1779 dated 15.11.1994 are being challenged in W.P.No.25989 of 1996 by the three Writ petitioners therein.
12. At the time when the matter was pending before the Government, the respondent No.7 in W.P. No.25989 of 1996 made an application on 27.06.1996 to declare him as founder trustee of the eight temples. By proceedings R.C.No.A4/9154/96 ADM dated 14.09.1996, the respondent No.4 passed orders confirming respondent No.7 as founder trustee of the eight temples on the ground that he was their hereditary trustee.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS :
13. The petitioners contend that there was a scheme of administration settled in O.S.No.50 of 1895 in the District Court, Machilipatnam, which was later on recognized by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, constituted under the then Madras Act II of 1927; that the scheme was later modified in O.S.No.25 of 1928 to which the said Board was a party; and for several generations the families of petitioners 1 and 2 were functioning in management and got hereditary rights in the office having gifted substantial properties. The p
