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.

ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments,Smt. Anne Devi Subhashini, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 (W.P.No.6278 of 2023), Sri V.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Kolla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5& 6 (W.P.No.15869 of 2022), Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities.

2. The issue in both the writ petitions is common; therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed inW.P.No.6278 of 2023 are taken for reference.

3. Challenge in the Writ PetitionNo.6278 of 2023 is to the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent making a recommendation to the 2^nd respondent to grant exemption to the 6^th respondent Sangham, from the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), in terms of the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021. W.P.No.15869 of 2022 is filed for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to take control of the Mandapam which is under unauthorized control of the 6^th respondent and facilitate the petitioner to construct the quarters.

4. It is contended that the petitioner is an Archaka of the 5^th respondent - temple. Prior to the petitioner, his father and forefathers were rendering services to the 5^th respondent - temple.

5. It is contended that in 1764 AD, the then Zamindar Sri Rajamanuri Peda Venkata Krishnarao, donated an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land for the construction of the 5^threspondent's temple, Sri Uma Maheshwara Swamy Vari Temple. In 1922, a survey was conducted by the Government to demarcate the boundaries of the property. In 1948, the then successor to the Zamindar family, late Manuri Venkata Narayana, granted permission to the petitioner's grandfather, who was Archaka to construct a house on the southern side of the temple and reside in the second house. Although permission was granted to construct the house, they were unable to do so and have been living in a tin shed. In 1971, members of the Arya Vysya Community formed the 6^threspondent Sangham and constructed a Mandapam on the southern side of the temple, naming it Gnana Mandir, where the petitioner's forefather was allowed to construct a house for residential purposes. The said Mandapam was put to misuse by the members of the 6^threspondent. The petitioner's father had requested permission to construct a house on the first floor of the Mandapam. The 4^threspondent had recommended the 2^ndrespondent for the grant of permission to the petitioner to construct the house. However, there has been no action on the petitioner’s representations seeking permission to construct a house. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Mandapam is being used by the Members of the 6^threspondent for commercial purposes and that they derive income from it. Without granting the permission to the petitioner, the respondents have, however, allowed the 6^th respondent to construct a commercial complex on top of the Mandapam. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15869 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondent to prevent unauthorized activities of the Arya Vysya Sangham.

6. It is contented that the 5^threspondent temple i.e., Sri Uma Maheswara Swami is the main deity and the other deities, i.e., Subrahmanyeswara Swamy, Vigneswara Swamy, Kalabhairava S