2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22336

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUMATHI JAGADAM
CHEVURI RADHA KRISHNA & ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER GUNTUR – Respondent
CMA 169/2011

The court held that an institution cannot be directly published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act without prior registration under Sections 43/44 and income assessment under Section 65, and that principles of natural justice require notice before listing an institution as public.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/1987) - Section 2(23) - Section 2(27) - Section 6(c)(ii) - Section 43 - Section 44 - Section 87(1)(c) - Section 88 - Principles of natural justice - Whether the publication of an institution as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act can be done without prior notice to the persons in management - The notification directly listing the Ashramam under Section 6(c)(ii) without first registering it under Section 43 or Section 44 and without assessing its income under Section 65 is illegal - The requirement to follow principles of natural justice before affecting civil rights is implicit. (Paras 23, 24, 25)

(B) Religious Institution - Definition - An institution, including a Samadhi, must be established or maintained for a religious purpose to fall under the definition - The nature of the institution is to be determined by whether it is a public or private concern, dependent on whether the management is controlled by the public or by the founder and his descendants - The mere fact that the public is admitted to worship does not itself lead to an inference of dedication to the public; the user must be by right and not by concession. (Paras 13, 16, 27)

(C) Appeal - Scope - The appellate court can interfere when the order of the lower authority is contradictory and legally unsustainable. (Para 28)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming to be the descendants of the founders, filed a petition under Section 87(1)(c) of Act 30/1987 seeking a declaration that the ‘Yogananda Ashramam’ was neither a religious nor charitable institution. They contended the Ashramam was a private family institution established by their grand-mother, Mahalaxmamma, through a settlement deed dated 01.03.1943. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, had issued a notification under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act on 03.08.2000 enlisting the Ashramam as a public religious institution. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments dismissed the appellants’ petition in O.A.No.42/2001, holding the Ashramam to be a public institution. Aggrieved, the appellants filed this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. It found that the Deputy Commissioner’s approach was fundamentally flawed and that he had misinterpreted the evidence. The court observed that the respondent had issued the notification under Section 6(c)(ii) directly without first registering the institution under Section 43 or 44 of the Act and without assessing its income under Section 65, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. The court also noted that no notice was given to the appellants before the notification, which violated the principles of natural justice as it affected their civil rights. The court further held that the evidence, including the Advocate Commissioner’s report, did not establish that the Ashramam was of a public nature but rather suggested it was a private family institution. The court relied on the judgments in Nallamothu Veeraiah and Miryala Narayana to emphasize the proper procedure for registration and publication.

Issues: Whether the ‘Yogananda Ashramam’ is a public religious institution under Act 30/1987, and whether the notification under Section 6(c)(ii) was validly issued without prior notice and without following the prescribed procedure under Sections 43, 44, and 65 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an institution cannot be directly published under Section 6(c)(ii) of Act 30/1987. The proper procedure requires initial registration under Section 43 or Section 44, followed by an assessment of income under Section 65, and then publication under Section 6. Crucially, before any such action that affects the civil rights of the trustees or managers, principles of natural justice require that they be given adequate notice and an opportunity of hearing. The court also reaffirmed that the essential nature of an institution (public vs. private) is determined by the intention of the founder and the right of the public to worship, not merely by the fact of public access.

Result: Appeal allowed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, in O.A.No.42 of 2001 dated 25.08.2009 was set aside. No order as to costs. (Paras 29-30) END OF HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT:

The Appeal, filed under Section 88 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act 30/1987”), challenges the order dated 25-08-2009 in O.A.No.42 of 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur.

2. The Appellants, petitioners in O.A. No.42 of 2001, filed the petition against the respondent under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act 30/1987. They sought a declaration that Yogananda Ashramam, Vinukonda, is neither a Religious nor a Charitable Institution, nor an Endowment, nor any other type of Institution covered under the Act 30/1987.

3. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Deputy Commissioner.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

i) The 1^st petitioner‟s grand-parents established an Ashramam named “Yogananda Ashramam” at Vinukonda, Guntur District, in honour of their second son Venkateswarlu, also known as Venkateswara Dasu, who lived a saintly life and followed the sanyasi dharma, in two acres out of the land purchased in the name of his grand-mother Mahalaxmamma. This property was dedicated to the Ashramam, and a trust was formed with her as the Managing Trustee. The family members then managed the trust as Settler Trustee through a Settlement Deed dated 01.03.1943, recorded under Document No. 728/1943. Additionally, she executed two Wills on 02-03-1963 and 24-12- 1966 during her lifetime.

ii) During the lifetime of the founders, a statue of Sri Yogananda Narsimhaswamy was installed, along with the arrangement of the Bala Devi mud idol. The Ashramam includes within its premises a hall with Srikrishna Mandiram and Ammavari Mandiram. This property houses the samadhis of Chevuri Hanumaiah, Mahalaxmamma, and their son Venkateswara Dasu. One family member, Venkateswara Dasu, attained Jeeva Samadhi, and it is believed that through him, the family grew well and prospered. The original structures were mud terraced middle domestic houses. Over time, additional rooms and 15 sheds were added to facilitate the maintenance of the trust, ensuring that it was not burdensome. All the buildings were originally personal domestic houses. Family members, up to the present generation, regularly look after and actively participate in the functions of Ashramam.

iii) There has been no establishment of any charity or endowment for any purpose whatsoever. It is even less plausible that any donation or charity has been created for a public purpose. Over the past sixty years, since the settlement deed dated 01.03.1943, there has been no alteration. By any measure of interpretation, the settlement deed does not fall within the institutions as defined or described in the Act 30/1987. Furthermore, the notification itself is legally invalid.

5. The respondent‟s counter averments:

i) The Inspector from the Endowment Department in Narasaraopet submitted a report dated 15.08.2000. He stated that Mahalaxmamma, wife of Hanumaiah, executed a settlement deed on 01.03.1943, registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office in Vinukonda, granting absolute rights to the Ashramam but not to any individual. Currently, the site is valued at around Rs.50.00 lakhs, and the petitioners aim to claim the income generated from it as if it were their own property. The idols of Sri Swamyvaru in the Ashramam were gifted and donated by the public, who freely enter the Ashramam without objections or interference from the petitioners or their family members. The public also come to pay their vows to Sri Swamyvaru. The Ashramam is recognised as a place of religious charity under Section 2 and sub-Section 21 of the Act 30/1987.

ii) The respondent further stated in his counter that the petitioners filed W.P.No.14348/2001, showing the Commissioner of Endowments Department, the Assistant Commissioner of Guntur, and the Deputy Commissioner of Guntur as respondents No.1 to 3. They requested a writ or order declaring the 1^st respondent's action,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document