ORDER:

The 4 respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of a Kalyana Mandapam situated at Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District, known as Sri Sitarama Kalyana Mandapam. This Kalyana Mandapam was earlier under the possession of one Sri G.V. Purushottam Sarma, who claimed ownership over the Kalyana Mandapam. In order to recover possession of the said property, the temple had filed O.A.No.130 of 2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada and the same was allowed on 16.02.2010. This resulted in a long litigation before this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which ended with the dismissal of SLP No. 17253 of 2015 and SLP No. 20755 of 2015, giving liberty to Sri G.V. Purushottama Sarma to approach the civil Court for declaration of title. The petitioner submits that he was the Chairman of the temple when the matters were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and he had taken a lot of interest in recovering this property for the temple.

2. The petitioner submits that in a parallel set of proceedings, th Sri D. Chandrasekhar claiming to be the Dharmadhikari of the 5 respondent had raised claims on the Kalyana mandapam, which were th against the 4 Respondent temple in W.P.No.37375 of 2014 and W.P.No.14942 of 2015 before this Court. Both these writ petitions were withdrawn on 30.01.2020 and 06.02.2020 respectively. At that stage Sri th D. Chandrasekhar, claiming to be the Dharmadhikari of the 5 respondent, managed to get the impugned proceedings dated 19.05.2020 issued, whereby the Kalyan mandapam is to be handed over to the 5 Respondent.

3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said memo and the subsequent proceeding dated 02.07.2020 directing the executive officer of th rd the 4 respondent-temple and the 3 respondent to take further action in th handing over the Kalyana Mandapam to the 5 respondent, is before this Court.

4. Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner would th submit that there is no reason for handing over the property of the 4 th respondent to the 5 respondent. He would submit that the management of the Kalyana Mandapam would be a source of income for the temple and taking away such a source of income is not permissible.

nd

5. The 2 respondent, the Special Commissioner, Endowments had filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner should have approached the Endowments Tribunal and could not have approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy available under the Law.

nd The 2 respondent states that this Kalyana Mandapam was under the th control of the 5 respondent since 2001 onwards and on that basis the th Head of the 5 respondent Peetham had requested the authorities for handing over the administration of the Kalyana Mandapam. In the circumstances, it was decided that it would be appropriate to handover th the administration of the Kalyana Mandapam to the 5 respondent. The nd th

2 respondent also contended that the 5 respondent is undertaking spiritual activities and only management of the Kalyana Mandapam is th being handed over to the 5 respondent in view of the laudable objects of th the 5 respondent.

th th

6. The 5 respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. The 5 respondent submits that the Kalyana Mandapam is not a commercial function hall and is only a place of worship. He would submit that the Kalyana Mandapam is situated over an extent of 583 3/4 sq. feet and the same was constructed with the donations of some persons.

7. At that stage, one Smt. T. Seethamma, who had no title or th interest in the Kalyana mandapam and was a donor to the 4 Respondent temple, had created a Deed of trust over the kalyana mandapam appointing her son T. Sri Rama Sarma as Hereditary Trustee. The Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada in his report dated 20.5.2010, had informed the Commissioner, Endowments that the said Trust was not valid or legal. In L.G.C.No.15 of 1993 filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, th Vijayawada and Executive officer of the 4 Respondent t