Point of Law: Petitioner-sabha is situated in the State of Tamilnadu, the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987 would not apply to the petitioner-sabha and the registration of the Petitioner sabha, under the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1966 or the Endowments Act, 1987 is not permissible and it is set aside.

ORDER :

As all the three petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and are challenging actions of the State which are consequential to each other, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. In W.P.No.31438 of 2012, the petitioner is challenging the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor District in registering the petitioner institution under the provisions of Section 38 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 on 21.10.1981.

3. In W.P.No.31476 of 2016, the petitioner is challenging G.O.Ms.No.432 dated 12.09.2016, issued by the Government directing the Executive Officer of Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam to take over Ac.2.24 cents of land in Sy.No.218/3 of Pangallu Village, Sri Kalahasthi belonging to the petitioner-sabha.

4. In W.P.No.1931 of 2020, the petitioner is challenging the actions of the Executive Officer of the above referred temple, trying to take over the aforesaid land by prohibiting the petitioner from entering in to the said land.

5. The petitioner was registered as a Public Society on 21.12.1955 in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, as the Telugu Beri Vaisya Kulabhimana Sabha, Madras. The address of the society was given as old No.4, New No.28, Kalappaachari Street, Chennai. The name of the petitioner-sabha was changed to that of Ayira Vaisyar Telugu Beri Vysya Sabha under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Registrar of Societies on 19.11.2006.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially established in the year 1921 and had been registered as a Society in 1955 with its Registered Office at Chennai. The petitioner contends that it had certain properties which are specifically donated for a charitable purpose including a charitable institution known as “Änkamma Charities” which had been donated by late Smt. Annadisetty Ankamma, in the year 1965, settling the house in which the registered office of the petitioner-sabha is situated.

7. The petitioner-sabha also owns Ac.2.24 cents of land in Pangallu village, Sri Kalahasti, Chittoor District. This land is said to have been donated to the petitioner-sabha by one of its members for the purpose of using the said land, for growing flowers, which were to be offered to Sri Kalahasteeswara and Gnanaprasunamba, who are the presiding Deities of the Sri Kalahasteeswara Temple, Sri Kalahasthi (hereinafter referred to as the Temple). The petitioner has also been issued pattadar pass books by the revenue authorities showing the said land is the property of the petitioner-sabha.

8. The petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.31438 of 2012 contending that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Chittoor District had registered the petitioner-sabha under Section 38 of the Endowments act, 1966 without any intimation to the petitioner and also that such registration is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant Prasad lakshmi Nivas ganerival Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1963) SC 853, and the judgment in State of Bihar Vs. Charuseeladasi, AIR 1959 SC 1002, which was followed in the case of Panchanan Dhara and Ors., Vs Monmtha Narth Maity, (2006) 5 SCC page 330. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in these judgments had held that the Endowment law applicable in the State in which the seat of the Endowment Institution is situated would apply to all properties of such an institution irrespective of the location of such property in any other State.

9. While this writ petition was pending, the Endowment Department, on the ground that the petitioner sabha was seeking to construct a huge building in the land reserved for a flower garden had sought to stop the said construction and sought to take over the said land. At that stage, a meeting was conducted between the Commissioner, Endowments, the Executive Officer of