Point of Law: Sub-section (4), the presumption in respect of matters covered by clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in sub-section (1) is that the institution or the endowment is a public one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the endowment to be private or the property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment, as the case may be

JUDGMENT :

M Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings in Rc.No.J2/12676/2008 dated 26.03.2008 issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, notifying Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple, Ganjivari Street, Ravikamatham Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District under Section 6(c)(ii) of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'Act No.30 of 1987') as a public religious institution under Section 6 of Act No.30 of 1987 without following procedure laid down under Sections 43 and 44 of Act No.30 of 1987 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the proceedings Rc.No.J2/12676/2008 dated 26.03.2008.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that, Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple was constructed long ago and certain properties were registered in the name of the temple by registered gift deed dated 25.03.1908, executed by Inamdar by name late Bollapragada Krishnavenamma w/o Ranganayakulu in favour of Ganji Bapunaidu and others, who were members of the committee of Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple which was under construction at Ravikamatham. The income from the above mentioned property was directed to be utilized by the members of a committee and their successors for the maintenance of the temple. The said members of the committee completed the construction of temple and after their demise, the petitioners herein who are successors have been utilizing the income from property for the maintenance of the temple.

3. While the matter stood thus, there were suits between different parties of the temple and the tenants in occupation of the temple property filed O.S.No.123 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Chodavaram against the Committee members of the temple for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed and an appeal A.S.No.26 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram was also dismissed. The Committee members filed suits in O.S.No.77 to 80 of 2003 for eviction of the above mentioned tenants which was decreed and eviction was ordered. A suit for declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession was also filed in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram by one Kanchipati Somunaidu and others in collusion with the above mentioned tenants. The petitioners herein were impleaded as Defendant Nos. 32 to 36 in the said suit. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on 24.02.2012. An appeal was preferred against the dismissal of suit in A.S.No.239 of 2012 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.05.2015.

4. While the matter stood thus, an anonymous complaint was given by the villagers of Ravikamatham to the third respondent on 19.11.2019 alleging that one late Bollapragada Krishanvenamma gifted 70 cents of land to Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple and the income derived from the above said property is misappropriated by the petitioners for personal purpose. It is also further alleged that the temple properties of 15 to 20 crores value is being misappropriated by the petitioners and requested to take appropriate action.

5. As the villagers failed to obtained a favourable order in various forums, an anonymous complaint was submitted to the third respondent with false and frivolous allegation and acting upon such anonymous complaint, the third respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.A3/4825/2019 dated 19.11.2019 requesting the Station House Officer, Ravikamahtam to stop the authorized occupation of shops belonging to Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple. Thus, the third respondent, acting upon the above mentioned proceedings issued an endorsement dated 20.11.2019 and the petitioners herein are being restrained by the third respondent from entering into the shops and property of Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple.

6. The petitioners filed W.P.No.19506 of 2019, aggrieved by the pr