Compromise concerning religious institution property is invalid without pending litigation, and prior judgments on property ownership must govern administrative actions.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner-Bhakta Mandali challenges proceedings dated 31.03.1990 issued by the 2^nd Respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, permitting the 4^th Respondent-Temple to enter into a compromise with private parties, namely the predecessors of Respondents 5 to 8, with the consequence that approximately 1,000 square yards of temple land would be parted with. Although the said proceedings were later cancelled by Government Memo dated 09.05.2002, that cancellation was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8707 of 2002, resulting in revival of the original compromise proceedings. The 4th Respondent-Temple is presently taking steps to implement them. During the pendency of the matter, Respondents 9 to 11 were impleaded as per orders dated 23.12.2024 in W.P.M.P. No. 41436 of 2014, and subsequently Respondents 12 to 14 were impleaded as per orders dated 08.04.2022 in I.A. No. 1 of 2018, all of whom have a stake in the property and are accordingly, affected parties whose presence was found necessary for proper adjudication.

2. The case of petitioner is that the proposed implementation of compromise sanctioned under Proceedings dated 31.03.1990 would inevitably lead to alienation of temple property which, according to petitioner, already stands declared by this Court in C.C.C.A. No. 36 of 1982 as belonging entirely to the 4^th Respondent-Temple to the extent of 2,700 square yards. Petitioner points out that civil appeal conclusively held that the entire 5 Bams of land, equal to 2,700 square yards is temple land and cannot be claimed or enjoyed by private individuals including unofficial respondents or their predecessors.

2.1. It is further stated, as on date, no litigation whatsoever is pending concerning the subject temple property. Petitioner specifically highlights that O.A. No. 36 of 1987 filed by the private parties was withdrawn on 23.03.1996, while C.C.C.A.No. 36 of 1982 filed before this Court was dismissed on 29.11.1995. Therefore, any compromise purportedly approved under Section 89 of Act 30 of 1987 cannot be implemented in the absence of a pending proceeding. Petitioner asserts that compromise has thus become infructuous in law and unenforceable. On this basis, petitioner states that present Writ Petition has been instituted solely to prevent execution of impugned proceedings dated 31.03.1990, which, if acted upon, would adversely affect temple property of considerable public importance. It is emphasized that this writ is filed to protect, preserve and safeguard the sanctity and integrity of the temple lands belonging to the 4th Respondent-Institution.

2.2. Petitioner, in its affidavit, further states in detail that impugned proceedings were issued without recording any reasons whatsoever. According to petitioner, the 2^nd Respondent mechanically permitted a compromise touching valuable temple land without undertaking any independent verification, inquiry, or examination of the relevant records. It is asserted that proceedings were issued in a routine and mechanical fashion, contrary to the statutory duties of the Commissioner. Petitioner specifically contends that, while exercising power under Section 89 of Act 30 of 1987, the 2^nd Respondent failed to exercise due care, caution and diligence. The Commissioner erroneously proceeded on the assumption that extent of 5 Bams of land pertaining to temple is only 900 square yards. The correct extent of 5 Bams, as recognized in civil proceedings is 2,700 square yards. This fundamental error, according to petitioner, demonstrates total non-application of mind by the Commissioner app