Point of Law: translocation of a deity in a public temple-translocation of the deity to another place is permissible as long as the said translocation is done without a mala-fide intention and with all due respect and appropriate ceremonies being conducted for the said purpose.

ORDER :

1. As these two writ petitions are essentially in the nature of cross actions and relate to the same issue, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The controversy revolves around the relocation of the Deity in Sri. Mahankali Ammavari Temple situated at Issappalem hamlet of Mulakaluru village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District and the relocation of the tomb, with the bust, of late Smt. Gunji Chukkamma on the ground of reconstruction of the Temple.

3. It is the case of the 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 18299 of 2021, who is the daughter of late Smt. Gunji Chukkamma, that her mother out of her attachment towards her native village and on account of her devotion to Sri. Mahankali Ammavaru had got installed the Deity of “Sri. Mahankali Ammavaru” on the vacant site belonging to her with the assistance of the 2nd petitioner who was closely associated with her. The said Deity was installed on 17.03.1976 in accordance with the relevant Agama sastras and Rites and Rituals performed by Vedic scholars and purohits. As the initial site was not sufficient, a further extent of 75 ¾ cents of land in Sy. No. 57A of the said village had been purchased by Smt. Late Gunji Chukkamma. Over time a large number of persons in and around the locality and adjacent Districts came to repose immense faith in the said Deity. The temple was further developed by installation of “Sikhara Kalasham” etc. Subsequently, another 17½ cents of land was added to the temple premises by obtaining the same under a registered deed of sale dated 07.01.1985.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that on account of these developments and additions made by Late Smt. Gunji Chukkamma, it must be acknowledged that it is Late Smt. Gunji Chukkamma and the 2nd petitioner who were instrumental in the establishment of the temple and the Deity and that they would have to be treated as hereditary trustees of the temple. It is also stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, who is arrayed as respondent No. 4, by his proceedings in Rc. No. A5/11338 of 1996 dated 19.10.1996, had recognized the 1st petitioner as a founder trustee on the basis of the representation made by her mother late Smt. Gunji Chukkamma. Subsequently, late Smt. Gunji Chukkamma passed away in 1998 and her bust was installed in the premises of the temple on account of her role in the development of the temple and the request made by devotees attending the temple. She was also buried in the temple premises. The petitioner further states that as there was a controversy around her status as a member of the founder family, she had moved O.A. No. 84 of 2008, before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Tribunal, Guntur to declare her as a member of the founder family of the temple. This application appears to have been dismissed.

5. At this stage, a move was made for reconstruction of the temple. This reconstruction is said to have been necessitated on various grounds. Firstly, the Temple is a cement building with an RCC roof. This structure is developing cracks and patches of the roof have fallen off and it would be better to reconstruct the Temple rather than undertake repairs. Secondly, the highway adjoining the temple is being widened. This widening would require the temple to give up some land and the present location of the temple, within the reduced compound, would cause congestion to the devotees visiting the temple.

6. Keeping these factors in mind, a proposal was moved to reconstruct the Temple, within the same compound, by constructing a stone temple, after ensuring adequate space around the structure of the Temple for proper movement of the devotees. The petitioners herein had opposed the proposed reconstruction during the discussions held in this regard. However, the respondents have decided to go ahead with the proposal and have started to collect donations from the devotees for taking up the reconstruction.

7. The petitioners have now approached this Court, by way of W.P. No. 182