Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Chavali Hanuma Kumar, S/o. Late Ch. Radha Krishna Murthy - Appellant
Versus
Penumudi Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 85, 86 and 311 of 2024
Decided On : 18-06-2024
Hereditary - Archakatvam Service - A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 - Sections 34(3), 17 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding hereditary rights in temple service, concluding that the petitioner did not qualify as a hereditary Archaka and thus was not entitled to share in the Archakatvam lands.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves disputes over the right to perform Archakatvam service at an ancient temple, with claims from multiple parties regarding hereditary rights and entitlements to income from temple lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not qualify as a hereditary Archaka under the relevant Act and thus was not entitled to a share in the Archakatvam lands, although his service as a normal Archaka was not interfered with.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had the right to perform Archakatvam service and whether the orders of the Endowments Tribunal were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for hereditary Archaka status as defined in the Act, which influenced the decision to dismiss his claims.
Result: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's orders.
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 provisions of Amended Act 30/1987 and the subject temple was notified as 6(b) temple and it is under the administrative control and supervision of the 2nd respondent. Originally the forefathers of the petitioners rendered Archakatvam service in the subject temple hereditarily from generations together including his father late Chavali Radha Krishna Murthy. Moreover, the petitioner is a Graduate and a qualified Archaka having completed the course of Archaka Pravesa and Vara with specialization in ‘Siva Agamas’. Basically the office of the Archakas in the subject temple is hereditary and five families used to function as hereditary Archakas and used to render Archakatvam service for generations together for times immemorial and even as on today the persons from hereditary Archakas only continued Archakatvam n the subject temple. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 04.05.1951 under doc No.1111/1951 S.R.O. Tenali, the Archakas are entitled to enjoy the income over the ‘Archakatvam service land’ belonging to the subject temple while rendering Archakatvam service to the deity and the same was also approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, vide proceedings in 11153/1970 dated 02.05.1970. By virtue of the said agreement dated 04.05.1951, the income over the said land has to be shared by 5 families. Moreover, consequent upon the death of five original Archakas, who are the signatories to the said document, their descendants continued in Archakatvam service even though hereditary Archakatvam was abolished after commencement of Act 30/1987 and endowment authorities also never raised any objection with regard to conducting of Archakatvam service by them.
While so, the respondents 5 to 7 who are conducting Archakatvam service in the subject temple on rotation, filed WP No.17446 of 1999 before this Court questioning the arrangement of Hundi in the subject temple as it would affect their livelihood and subsequently the petitioner and respondents no.5 to 7 together filed a suit under CFR No.5635 of 1999 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tenali with regard to arranging of Hundi in the subject temple. The petitioner gained good reputation in the public for his service and also from the department and it has become the eyesore for the respondents No.5 to 8 and thereby 6th respondent continued to give the troubles without giving charge for the month of Sravan Masam every year and finally the petitioner was filed W.P.No.23719 of 2013, dated 19.08.2013 wherein the Manager of the subject temple was directed to take appropriate action to restore Archakatvam service to the petitioner in the subject temple, pending disposal of main writ petition. When the 6th respondent herein, who was 4th respondent in WP No.29160 of 2013 failed to comply with the direc
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
