1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader for Endowments for R.1 to 4 viz. Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, the Commissioner, the Regional Joint Commissioner (for short, the RJC) and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department of State of Andhra Pradesh and Smt. K. Lalitha, Standing Counsel for R.5-Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple and the unofficial respondents 6 and 7 who were served with notices with no appearance taken as heard and perused the prayer in the Writ Petition with supporting affidavit and other material on record including the counter of the R.5-Temple.

2. The prayer in the Writ petition is as follows:-

To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc. No A3/3786/2016 dated 06.01.2017 declaring that the petitioner has no right of Archakatvam and not rendering service in Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Kankipadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District and entitled to hold any temple land and the consequential notice in Lr. No 02/2017 dated 16.01.2017 issued by the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, void, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 25 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents not to interfere in the hereditary Archakatvam of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders.

3. The averments in the supporting affidavit are that he belongs to the hereditary Archaka family of Sri K. Poorneswara Rao, S/o Seetharamaiah who was the hereditary Archaka of R.5-Temple and the petitioner was declared as hereditary Archaka of R.5-Temple and said Seetharamaiah was declared as hereditary Archaka of R.5-temple vide Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1932 by the District Judge, Guntur and after his death, his son Poorneswara Rao rendered Archakatvam as hereditary and said Poorneswara Rao having no male issues, the petitioner, being the son of 2nd daughter by name Swarna Seetha Mahalakshmi, of said Poorneswara Rao, was brought up and given a share by said Poorneswara Rao, in his movable and immovable properties along with hereditary Archakatvam service through registered Will dated 08.10.1984 and since then he has been rendering Archakatvam service on turn basis besides the R.6 and 7. The petitioner further submits that there are 3 more branches of Kundurti families i.e. R.6 belongs to family of Kundurti Mohan Rao and R.7 belongs to the family of Kundurti Visweswara Rao, who are rendering Archakatvam on turn basis in yearly rotation and the family members of another Kundurti family of Kundurty Bala Krishna Murthy gave up their rights in the hereditary Archakatvam service. Thus, every individual rendering Archakatvam service will get his turn once in three years and accordingly the petitioner renders service in temple when his turn comes and the remaining two years, kept on doing a small business in Gudivada town of Krishna district to eak out livelihood. He further submits that while so, all of a sudden, the 7th respondent filed revision before the R.3-the RJC, questioning the proceedings of the R.4-Asst.Commissioner, for permitting the R.6 to render archkatvam in the temple by rotation along with the petitioner. The R.3-RJC, on enquiry, directed the petitioner to submit a letter indicating that he is doing business in Gudivada town residing at kankipadu in his own house and also to undertake to do Archakatvam service regularly without fail and on considering the said letter, the R.3 found that the petitioner is not rendering service and not produced any evidence and residing in Gudivada town and directed the Executive Officer to take back the land admeasuring Ac.3.30 cents from his possession. The petitioner further submits that he mentioned in his letter that he has been rendering Archakatvam service of Sri Seetharamaiah family by enjoying the land admeasuring Ac.3.