Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Chavali Hanuma Kumar, S/o. Late Ch. Radha Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Penumudi Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Jagan Mohan Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
As the issue involved in all these civil miscellaneous appeals is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
2. All these appeals have been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 12.09.2023 passed in O.A No.541 of 2017 & O.A.No.497 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani (for short “the Tribunal”).
3. The appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 is the petitioner in O.A No.541 of 2017 and the appellants in CMA No.311 of 2024 are the petitioners (respondents No.5 to 8 in O.A No.541 of 2017) in O.A No.497 of 2017 on the file of the Tribunal.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
5. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the subject temple Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple is an ancient temple, which was constructed around 100 years back and the same is a ‘Parasurama Prathista’ Originally the institution was under the purview of Endowments Department, under Madras Act/HRCE Board and later it was once again registered under Act 17/1996 and presently governed by
The judgment clarified that the abolition of hereditary rights under the Act precludes claims to Archakatvam service based solely on lineage without meeting statutory criteria.
Point of Law- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub sections (1) & (2) of this Section, the qualified members of those Archaka families which were continuing in archakatvam service under the prov....
The court ruled that the administrative authority exceeded its jurisdiction in determining hereditary rights, necessitating resolution by the Endowments Tribunal as per Act 30 of 1987.
Continuity of worship must be preserved during administrative inquiries, and appointments should be respected unless compelling irregularities are proven.
The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR and CE Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable.
The court held that interim relief must be granted based on merit evaluation, and not merely on urgency, necessitating a proper hearing of both parties before the Tribunal.
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
