IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6600 of 2013 Date: 21.04.2026 Between:

Sri Raja Rajeswari Ammavari Alayam … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, and others …Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in interfering with the day to day pooja and development activities of Sri Raja Rajeswari Ammavari Alayam (for short, ‘the Temple’), situated at Vengal Rao Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, as illegal, void ab initio, without any jurisdiction, and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the pooja and development activities of the Temple.

2. Heard Mr. I. Laxmikanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Veeresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Hyderabad Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, and Mr. C. Buchi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Telangana State Housing Board. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Temple was existing much prior to the construction of the present Vengal Rao Nagar Colony at Yousufguda, and the Temple was registered under Section 43 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, (for short, ‘the Act’). It is contended that the 2nd respondent, who was against the Temple and its activities right from the beginning, had constructed a sump house near the Temple and claimed the entire 400 square yards of land belonging to the Temple without any document. During 2005, the 2^nd respondent influenced the 1^st respondent-Commissioner of Endowments and got initiated suo moto proceedings in R.P. No. 2 of 2005 against the Chairman of the Temple stating that the subject property belongs to the 2^nd respondent and the Temple has no authority to interfere with the possession of the 2^nd respondent. It is contended that there is no open land adjacent to the Temple, other than the land allotted to the 2^nd respondent, however they admitted the existence of the Temple. The said suo moto proceedings were challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 16536 of 2005 and it was allowed by order dated 29.07.2005, by quashing the suo moto proceedings. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent as well as the petitioner filed applications before the Endowments Tribunal, in O.A. No.233 of 2010 and O.A. No.148 of 2010 and the Endowments Tribunal had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the Temple, and the advocate commissioner inspected the Temple premises and submitted a report that there are two Temples, (1) the idol of two feet of Sri Raja Rajeswari Devi Temple, and (2) two feet height Ganesh Temple on southern side of compound wall with a distance of 19-10 feet between sump house and Temples, and the distance between both Temples is 26-7 feet, and it was also shown that there is electricity connection to both Temples and including sump house and that there is a gate existing near the sump house, and the Endowments Tribunal having accepted the existence of Temples, and the sump house having abandoned during 1978 itself dismissed both the cases by a common judgment dated 27.12.2012 holding that in view of the admission made by the 2nd respondent- HMWSSB, that they are not interfering with the performing of pooja and other functions conducted by devotees in the Temple of Sri Raja Rajeswari Devi, and Ganesh. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of O.A. before this Court by filing an appeal in C.M.A.No.725 of 2012 and the appeal was admitted and interim order dated 05.09.2012 was passed suspending the common judgment passed by the Endowments Tribunal.

4. Further, it is contended that no counter affidavit has been filed in the C.M.A. No. 725 of 2012, and the interim orders were made absolute on 04.01.2013, and the 2^nd respondent has not filed any appeal against the dismissal of their O.A. No.233 of 2010 and therefore the judgment of Endo