IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTFIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP.No. 14211 of 2002 Between: B.Laxminarsimha Charyulu ..... Petitioner V/s. The Executive Officer, Sri Laxminarsimha Swamy Devas, Devunipally (v), Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar district & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy Smt. B. Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Endowments The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP.No. 14211 OF 2002 O R D E R : Assailing the orders dated 24-5-2002 in Revision Petition No.50 of 1999 passed by the third respondent herein, i.e. the Regional Joint Commissioner, M2-III Endowments Department, Hyderabad whereunder while disposing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner which challenged the orders of Executive Officer, dated 02-7-1999, directed to take steps for restoration of the temple’s name as pattedar in the event of dispute as to the nature of the property. 2. The petitioner is the archaka of Sri Laxminarsimha Swamy Temple, Devunipalli (v) of Peddapalli Mandal in Karimnagar district. He claims that the land in survey No. 283 of Andugulapalli sivar of Devunipalli village, Peddapalli Mandal, Karimngar district is the patta land, which has been in possession and enjoyment of his ancestors and succeeded by him. The petitioner claims that the said land being patta land, the respondents have no jurisdiction to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the said land. However, the first respondent i.e., the Executive Officer of the temple issued a public notice for auctioning the leasehold rights over the said land. The petitioner approached the third respondent and filed a Revision Petition on 24-5-2002 under section 92 of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The third respondent held that the temple is an institution classified under section 6-C of the Act, and as such, possession and enjoyment of lands by the archakas of such temples cannot be disturbed. On this premise, the auction notice dated 02-7-1999 issued by the first respondent was set aside. However, while so holding, the third respondent had observed and directed the Executive Officer, i.e., the 1st respondent herein to take steps for restoration of the title of the temple if the petitioner claimed patta in respect of the aforesaid land. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that the land referred to above is not endowed to the temple and it is a patta land over which the petitioner has absolute rights. The short grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that the third respondent while disposing of the Revision Petition should not have issued directions to the first respondent to restore the title of the temple and thus divest the petitioner of his rights over the said land. 5. Having regard to the nature of dispute, whether it is a patta land of the petitioner or endowed to the temple, cannot be gone into in this writ petition. However, the third respondent also could not have straightaway directed the Executive Officer to take legal steps to restore the title of the temple. Be it noted, that the scope of the Revision Petition was limited to the extent as to whether the auction proposed by the first respondent was proper or not and the third respondent should have restricted the disposal of the revision petition to that extent only. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the orders in RP.No. 50 of 1999, dated 24-5-2002 to the extent it directed the Respondent No.1 to take steps to restore the name of the temple as pattedar, is not sustainable. However, the respondents are at liberty to inquire whether the lands are endowed land and on such inquiry if the lands are found to be endowed lands, the respondents are at liberty to take necessary steps for mutation of the name of the temple in the concerned records in the place of the petitioner strictly as per the provisions of the relevant law. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ Justice Noushad Ali. 31-05-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 1 4 2 11 OF 2002 Circulation Entry No. 3 6 Date: 31-05-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L