Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Sri Padmavathi Sametha Venkateshwara Swamy Viswasanthi Seva Samithi, Gorantla - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments.IV) Department and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 39248 of 2016 & 8871 of 2024
Decided On : 18-10-2024
Jurisdiction - Writ Petitions - Article 226 - Sections 154, 145 - The court found that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revoke the exemption and appoint a single trustee without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, managing two temples, challenged the appointment of a single trustee by the Endowments Department, claiming it was illegal and arbitrary, especially as their request for an extension of management was pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Commissioner acted beyond his authority under the Endowments Act, failing to provide the petitioner with notice or an opportunity to be heard, thus violating natural justice.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revoke the exemption and appoint a single trustee without notice to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner could not issue orders without the government's direction and that the actions taken were without proper authority and due process.
Result: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
WP No.39248 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief :
WP No.8871 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief :
2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions and the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is also one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the Secretary of the Petitioner's Samithi and that the said Samithi Lakshmi Sametha constructed Padmavathi Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Gorantla and the said temple was constructed without any grant from Endowments Department and the said temple is maintained by the villagers who are the members of petitioner samithi without any complaint whatsoever from any quarters. Infact in the said premises there are two temples: (1) Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Venkateswara Swamy Temple, (2) Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple. The said Sitaramanjaneya Temple was under the Endowments Department and during the period of earlier Chairman/President of the Committee the Endowments Department has handed over the charge of the temple to the Committee for maintenance as the earlier President in the guise of renovation of the said temple misused the funds of the Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Venkateswara Samatha Swamy Temple, as such, he was removed and the present committee has taken over the charge, created funds from the known persons and also spent its own funds to a tune of Rs.40 Lakhs and developed the said Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple. It is further stated that the petitioner is maintaining the said temples more particularly Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Venkateswara Samatha Swamy Temple which has huge funds with great devotion to the satisfaction of one and all including the respondent department.
While the things stood thus, the Endowments Department handed over the above said temples to Sri Vidyaranya Swamy and Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Mahasansthan, Hampi vide Proceedings Memo.No.D2/22397/ 2009, dt.07.05.2010 and D.Dis.No.H1/30068/2010, dated 28.08.2010, but subsequently on the representation of the petitioner Devasthanam dated 09.03.2011, the above two temples were withdrawn from the management of Sri Vidyaranya Swamy and Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Mahasansthan, Hampi, while executing the same from the purview of the act and handed over to the petitioner samithi for a period of 3 years vide proceedings Memo No.20905/Endts.IV(1)/2011 of the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2011. The said 3 years period got expired by 23.09.2014, but before the expiry of the said 3 years period, the petitioner Devasthanam has submitted representations
The court established that the Commissioner of Endowments lacked jurisdiction to revoke exemptions and appoint trustees without following due process as mandated by the Endowments Act.
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
The court established that proper authority and jurisdiction are essential for appointing an Executive Officer under the Endowments Act, particularly in light of existing exemptions.
The court affirmed that the Endowments Department's authority is not subject to review without explicit statutory provision, and prior judgments regarding property rights are binding.
Point of Law : Once misappropriation has come to the notice, necessary remedial steps were taken by the Bharana Samithy - But fact remained that there occurred such a huge loss of properties of the D....
The court ruled that a petitioner lacks standing to contest administrative exemptions under the Endowments Act if they have no defined legal rights over the subject property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
