HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

* * *

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.1438 OF 2025

16^th December, 2025

Between:

Sri Guru Pershad and 3 others

…Appellants

AND

Sri Hanuman Temple, Saidabad Bhaktha Mandali

and 10 others

…Respondents

Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants.

Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.

Sita Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments

appearing for the respondent No.6.

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 18.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17814 of 2009 filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner viz., Sri Hanuman Temple, Saidabad Bhaktha Mandali (‘Temple’) seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in Rc.No.D2/23878/98-II

dated 31.03.1990 issued by the respondent No.2 therein as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the Proceedings in Rc.No.D2/23878/98-II dated 31.03.1990 and restrained the respondents therein from acting upon or implementing the said Proceedings in any manner. The respondent No.4/Temple and the official respondents in the Writ Petition were directed to ensure that the entire extent of the Temple land as adjudicated in CCCA.No.36 of 1982 is preserved and safeguarded in accordance with law.

3. The appellants before us were the respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 and 12 in the Writ Petition. The appellants claim to be the successors in interest of the owner of the Temple land who was also the priest of the Temple.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants relies on the Proceedings dated 31.03.1990 issued by the Commissioner Endowments Department, Twin Cities, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said Proceedings record permission being granted to the Executive Officer of the Temple to enter into a Compromise in the matter of the land admeasuring 2,000 square yards belonging to the Temple with Sri Ganesh Pershad, subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated thereunder. Sri Ganesh Pershad, who was a party to the Compromise is the deceased father of the appellant Nos.2 and 3. Sri Ram Pershad, whose name is also recorded in the Proceedings is the deceased father of the appellant No.1.

5. Senior Counsel argues that the Compromise entered into between the appellants’ predecessors viz., Sri Ganesh PErshand and Sri Ram Pershad in interest and the Executive Officer of the Temple was referred to and relied upon by two learned Single Judges of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in order dated 03.04.2001 passed in W.P.No.6687 of 1990 and order dated 13.07.2009 passed in W.P.No.8707 of 2002, respectively. Senior Counsel places the oral order passed in W.P.No.6687 of 1990 which held, inter alia, that the Compromise is beneficial to the Temple and that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the said Writ Petition had agreed to give 100 square yards belonging to them in favour of the Temple.The appellants. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the said Writ Petition were the appellants’ predecessors in interest. Senior counsel for the appellants further submits that a similar order was passed by a learned Single Judge on 13.07.2009 in furtherance of the directing the respondent No.4 therein i.e., the Executive Officer of the Temple to proceed to enter into a Compromise in conformity with the Proceedings dated 31.03.1990.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner relies on a judgment dated 29.11.1995 passed by the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CCCA.No.36 of 1982 which was filed challenging an order dated 06.04.1981 passed in O.S.No.141 of 1979. The a