Compromises affecting Endowment properties require prior sanction from authorities as per legislative provisions, and failure to adhere results in invalidation of any award or settlement.

The Court made the following order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, Smt. P. Radhika, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-temple and Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 19.

2. The 2^nd respondent-temple had filed O.S.No.79 of 1980 before the Learned District Munsiff, Machilipatnam, for declaration of title and removal of a Darga, which had come up in the temple land, admeasuring 28 Sq. yards, in July, 1979. This suit, after trial, had been dismissed by a Judgment and decree, dated 10.04.1995. It may also be noted that the defendants in the suit were various private individuals, apart from the Mujavar, representing the Darga.

3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 10.04.1995, the temple filed A.S.No.66 of 1995, before the Learned Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam. During the pendency of the said Appeal, a compromise is said to have been affected between the parties to the appeal and the same was placed before the Lok Adalat Bench constituted by the Andhra Pradesh District Legal Services Authority, Krishna District. Subsequently, the Lok Adalat recorded the said compromise and passed an award, dated 30.07.2007. Under this compromise, recorded in the award, the temple was declared to be the absolute owner of 413 Sq. yards on the northern side in the plan appended to the compromise in R.S.No.594/1 of Pedana. Similarly, the Muslim community was declared to be entitled to enjoy the southern side of 413 Sq. yards in the plan, as the absolute owners, including the Darga in R.S.No.594/1 of Pedana. It was also agreed that the remaining site, in front of the temple, belongs to the temple.

4. This award came up for challenge, by way of this Writ Petition, by two petitioners, who have subsequently passed away. Thereafter the petitioners 3 to 6 were impleaded, by an order, dated 12.03.2025, of this Court, in I.A.No.1 of 2021.

5. The deceased 1^st petitioner is the depondent to the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition. In this affidavit, the 1^st petitioner contended that he was pursuing the suit and was examined as P.W.-1. The 1^st petitioner also contended that the suit was dismissed on account of non-cooperation of the Endowments Department Officials and that a compromise was affected by the Manager of the temple, under pressure from the local leaders. The petitioners contend that the said award is vitiated on three grounds. Firstly, no compromise could have been affected, in relation to any Endowments land, in view of the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.11812 of 2005, dated 22.11.2005. Secondly, the suit in question was originally only for 28 Sq. yards, whereas, under the compromise the temple gave up 413 Sq. yards. Thirdly, the suit which was filed by the temple, represented by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, came to be compromised by the Manager/Executive Officer, without consulting the devotees or the Board or the petitioners 1 & 2, who had been pursuing this case.

6. The respondents 3 to 19, who were defendants in the suit, have resisted this contention, stating that the Darga had always been existing in the land in question and it was only reconstruction of the existing Darga, which had resulted in the suit being filed. The respondents 3 to 19 would also contend that the compromise had been affected to ensure communal harmony in the village and that such a claim made by them had also been given up. It is further contended that the settlement