HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.169 OF 2007 Between: Sri Kodandaramaswamy Vari Temple, Buchireddipalem, Nellore District, represented by its Member of Founder’s Family. ...Appellant And The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents :: J U D G M E N T :: Counsel for the appellant : Sri P.Yadagir Rao 17th July, 2007 Per G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. This appeal by Sri Kodandarama Swamy Vari Temple, Buchireddypalem (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant temple’) represented by its hereditary Managing Trustee, Sri D. Muralikrishna Reddy, is eighth in the chain of litigation instituted by or against the appellant in relation to the land measuring Ac.480.26 cents of Kavetipalem Village, Kovur Taluk of Nellore District. For deciding the appeal, we have culled out the facts from the pleadings of Writ Petition No.20938 of 1995 and the documents produced by the counsel for the appellant on 9-7-2007 in compliance of the Court’s order dated 20-2-2007. These are: 1) On 1-3-1948, Sri Tirumala Nallan Chakravarthula Thiruvengada Charyulu, agent by general power of attorney to Sriman Srimath Addanki Tirumala Kumara Singara Charyulu, Senior (Managing) Proprietor of Kavetipalem Village, Kovur Taluk filed a petition for amendment of entries in column 7 of ‘C’ Register of Kavetipalem Village by deleting the description “servants of Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple” and by entering the names of the petitioner and other owners of the lands in that register. After verifying the registers and records and taking note of the judgment of Principal District Munsif, Nellore in O.S.No.366 of 1941, whereby he declared that Sriman Srimath Addanki Tirumala Kumara Singara Charyulu Ayyavarlu garu and others are the sole proprietors of shrotriem and that the deity is not entitled to be registered even as a joint proprietor, Collector, Nellore, vide his order dated 1-8-1949, directed the amendment of the entry in column 7 of ‘C’ Register by deleting the above noted description and entering the names of the petitioner and other owners as it was in the old taluk copy of the “C” Register. 2) O.S.No.14 of 1957 (re-numbered as O.S.No.55 of 1957) filed by Vangipuram Rangachariar (deceased) (through his legal representatives) against the appellant temple and eight others for grant of a declaration that the Inam referred to in the suit was a personal grant to the predecessor of the plaintiffs and order dated 21-6-1956 passed by the Collector was illegal, was decreed by Sub-Judge, Kavali on 22.2.1962. 3) A.S.No.129 of 1962 filed by the appellant temple against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed by District Judge, Nellore vide his judgment dated 8-8-1963. The appellate court confirmed the finding recorded by the trial court that the grant in question is a personal and hereditary grant made for the personal benefit of the grantees subject to their performing some services to the temple and that the Collector did not have the jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to resume the land and re-grant the same to the temple. 4) S.A.No.828 of 1968 filed by the appellant temple was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25-6-1973. 5) After the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the 1956 Act’), Special Tahsildar (Inams), Kavali (respondent No.3) initiated proceedings under Section 3 of that Act. He issued notice in Form-I under Section 3(2) and invited interested persons to file statement of particulars specifying whether the land is an Inam land; whether such Inam land is in ryotwari; zamindari or Inam village, and whether such Inam land is held by any institution. The occupants of the land filed their statements claiming that the land is covered by personal grant made in favour of their predecessors who were rendering service to the temple and that the same was in their possession. The trustees of the appellant temple also filed statement claiming that the land belongs to the deity. After considering the rival statements, respondent No.3 passed order dated 7-1-1977, whereby he held that the land in Kavetipalem Village is Inam in an Inam village and is not held by any institution. The appellant temple and respondent No.5 appealed against the order of respondent No.3. While the appellant temple questioned the finding recorded by respondent No.3 that the land does not belong to the institution, respondent No.5 claimed that the land is in ryotwari village and not in Inam village. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali (respondent No.2) disposed of both the appeals by a common order dated 2-12-1978. He dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant temple and allowed the one filed by respondent No.5. 6) The appellant temple questioned the aforementioned order in revision filed under Section 14-A of the 1956 Act. By an order dated 5-6-1995, Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh (respondent No.1) dismissed the revision. He considered various orders and judgments, to which reference has been made hereinabove, and held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the 1987 Act’) are not applicable to such proceedings. He further held that the judgments of different courts including the High Court leave no scope for doubt regarding the authenticity of the original grant, which was personal to respondent No.5 burdened with service. He also confirmed the finding of the appellate authority that the lands are Inam lands in a ryotwari village and dismissed the revision. The appellants challenged orders dated 7.1.1977, 2.12.1978 and 5.6.1995 in Writ Petition No.20938 of 1995. Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that the concurrent findings recorded by respondent Nos.3, 2 and 1 respectively about the nature of the grant and the land are not based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and that even if the grant is treated personal to the Inamdars, the same will be deemed to be a religious endowment within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the 1987 Act. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Section 34 of the 1987 Act and argued that the rights, if any held by the Inamdars stood abolished with effect from the date of enforcement of the 1987 Act. The learned Single Judge referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and of the Division Bench in Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Deity v. P. Purushotham (died) by L.Rs.[2] and distinguished the same by recording the following observations: “It is to be noted that the land, which is the subject matter of the above decision, admittedly related to archakatvam service. Hence, it was contended by the appellants therein that since the office of archakatvam stood abolished under Section 34 of the Endowments Act, 1987, the respondents have no right to continue in the land in question by operation of law. The Division Bench while extensively referring to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu’s case (2 supra), accepted the contention of the appellants therein and held that in view of the operation of law the respondents had no right to hold over the land and, accordingly, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. From the facts in the above decision it is clear that the respondents therein held the land in lieu of archakatvam service, to which they had succeeded by hereditary. Hence, while following the decision of the Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2 Supra), wherein the abolition of the hereditary rights to appointments under Section 34 was held to be not violative of either Article 25(1) or 26(b) of the Constitution of India, the appeal was allowed by the Division Bench granting a decree for ejection in favour of the temple.” The learned Single Judge then held that Section 34 of the 1987 Act was not relevant for deciding the issue raised by the appellant because the same relates to the right of office held by archakas and other service- holders and not the personal grants of Inamdars. The learned Single Judge further held that in terms of Section 7 of the 1956 Act, the imams ceased to have effect from the date of grant of ryotwari patta and a vested property right stood created in favour of respondent No.5. Sri P. Yadgir Rao reiterated the contentions urged before the learned Single Judge and submitted that even though the finding recorded by the three authorities regarding the nature of grant is essentially a finding of fact, the same is liable to be reversed because all the authorities misread the evidence produced by the parties. He further argued that in terms of Section 34 of the 1987 Act, the right of the Inamdars stood abolished and, therefore, the land in question would vest in the appellant temple. In our opinion, there is no merit in either of the contentions. A reading of order dated 1-8-1948 passed by Collector, Nellore shows that more than sixty years ago, Principal District Munsif, Nellore, in O.S.No.306 of 1941, held that Sriman Srimath Addanki Tirumala Kumara Singara Charyulu and others are the sole proprietors of the shrotriem and that the deity of the temple is not entitled to be registered even as a joint proprietor. This finding was relied by Collector, Nellore for directing amendment of the entries in column 7 of “C” Register of Kavetipalem Village and for deleting the description “servants of Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple”. He also directed that the names of the Inamdars be entered in the register. The suit filed by Vangipuram Rangachariar through his legal representatives against the appellant temple was decreed and the grant was declared to be personal to them. The judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed by the appellate court as well as this Court. These judgments are not shown to have been challenged by the appellant temple before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the same will be deemed to have become final and the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by declining to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by respondent Nos.3, 2 and 1 regarding the nature of the grant. The judgments of the Division Bench in Chiramana Pitchaiah v. Sri Kodandarama Swami Vari Devasthanam[3] and of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.147-453 of 1987 – Chirmana Pitchaiah v. Sri Kodandarama Swamy Vari Temple, on which reliance has been placed by the appellant, do not, in any manner, support the case set up by it because in those judgments also the finding recorded by the courts is that the grant made to Inamdars was personal to them, but was burdened with service. Section 34 of the 1987 Act, on which learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance, reads as under: “34. Abolition of hereditary rights in Mirasidars, Archakas and other office holders and servants:-(1) (a) Notwithstanding anything in any compromise or agreement entered into or scheme framed or sanad or grant made or judgment, decree or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or other authorities prior to the commencement of this Act and in force on such commencement, all rights, whether, hereditary, contractual or otherwise of a person holding any office of the Pedda Jeeyangar, Chinna Jeeyangar, a Mirasidar or an Archaka or Pujari or any other office or service or post by whatever name it is called in any religious institution or endowment shall on the commencement of this Act stand abolished. (b) Any usage or practice relating to the succession to any office or service or post mentioned in clause (a) shall be void; (c) All rights and emoluments of any nature in cash or kind or both accrued to and appertaining to any office or service or post mentioned in clause (a) and subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall on such commencement stand extinguished. (2) Every office holder and servant mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) holding office as such on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding the abolition of the hereditary rights, continue to hold such office or post on payment of only such emoluments and subject to such conditions of service referred to in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 35.” A bare reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that the same has the effect of abolition of the office of Pedda Jeeyangar, Chinna Jeeyangar, Mirasidar, Arhaka or Pujari. This section has nothing to do with the personal grants of Inamdars. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ with the learned Single Judge. Before concluding, we may mention that the scope of judicial review of the findings of facts recorded by a subordinate court or tribunal is extremely limited. The High Court cannot sit in appeal over such findings and interfere with the same merely because on a re- appreciation of the evidence, a different view is possible. The adequacy and sufficiency of evidence, which constitutes the foundation of the finding of fact, is also outside the scope of judicial review. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. 17th July, 2007 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS [1] AIR 1996 SC 1765 [2] 2004 (6) ALD 263 [3] 1983 (1) APLJ 177