THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.27087 of 2006

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed by Sri Kumkumeswara Swamy Temple, Parkal Village and Mandal, aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2006 passed by respondent No.5-Joint Collector, Warangal, confirming the order passed by respondent No.6-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, dated 07.01.1994 in granting Occupation Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of the unofficial respondent No.2.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The petitioner Temple constructed during the period of Kakatiyas’ Dynasty in the year 1265 A.D. and the same was registered under Section 43 (10) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called, the ‘Act’) and it was categorized under Section 6(c)(ii) of the ‘Act’. One Korikala Venkateswara Rao, who was the devotee of the Temple, donated the dry land to an extent of Ac.4.11 gts. to the petitioner Temple to perform ‘Nitya Kainkaryaradhanam’ and also for maintenance. The petitioner Temple is having lands to an extent of Ac.7.00 cents approximately and the said Inam lands are classified into ‘Deval Inam’ and are in the nature of “Masruthal Khidmat Inam lands”, it means it is a conditional Inam lands, which can be enjoyed by the Poojari for performing the pooja to deity in the Temple and the said lands cannot be alienated.

2.2. The said Deval Inam land to an extent of Ac.5.33 gts. were given to one Thammala Muthulingam for rendering Archakatvam to the Temple. After his death, his successor namely, Thammala Ankaiah rendered Archakatvam. After his death, his wife Siddamma filed an application before the Tahasildar on 18th Bai, 1330 Fasli for grant of succession. During the course of enquiry, Siddamma had given sworn statement that her husband was the holder of the conditional Inam as he rendered service for the petitioner Temple and she also stated that except her and her younger mother-in-law, no other surviving heirs to her deceased husband. She further stated that she appointed her brother Sambaiah for rendering the services to the Temple and she also submitted a copy of the Muntakab. Petitioner further stated that the witnesses who appeared before the enquiry also stated that the subject lands are conditional Inam lands. The then Tahasildar, while observing that the deceased Thammala Ankaiah was the holder of the Muntakab, issued Memorandum 34, dated 4th Thir, 1327 Fasli and held that Maash is Mashruthul Kidmat (subject to performance of services). The above said Maash has been released perpetually, which is evident from the perusal of the Munthakab and granted succession of late Ankaiah to Siddamma to the extent of 50% and the remaining 50% was kept in the name of Smt.Ramalakshmamma, who is none other than the younger mother- in-law of Siddamma, as Shikmi on 13.02.1331 Fasli. The same was approved by the then Deputy Collector on 22.02.1331 Fasli.

2.3. Petitioner further stated that Smt.Siddamma had never stated before the then Tahasildar that her brother-Kunduru Sambaiah was adopted as her son. On the other hand, she stated that she appointed her brother Kuduru Sambaiah as Archaka to render service to the Temple and she executed the Will Deed on 21.06.1973, in which she stated that during the life time of her husband, she had no children and the subject lands inherited to her were given in lieu of rendering services to the petitioner Temple. During the life time of Sambaiah, she brought Uppala Venkataiah to look after the house and agriculture as well as to render service to the Temple and she is no where mentioned that she adopted her brother Kunduru Sambaiah and Uppala Venkataiah. Hence, the question of adoption of her brother Kunduru Sambaiah does not arise and Uppala Venkataiah is no way related either to Siddamma or to Kunduru Sambaiah. Hence, mutating the lands of the petitioner Temple in the name of Uppala Rajubayyamma, who is the mother of Uppala Venkataiah, does not arise and as such