THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21032 of 2004 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioners questioned validity of notice, dated 22.10.2004, issued by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 87(1)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), in O.A.No.97 of 2004 filed by the third respondent raising dispute on the claim of the petitioners that they are members of founder’s family of Sri Seethal Matha & Chatwai Matha Temple, near Jummerathbazar, Puranapool, Hyderabad. Sri Seethal Matha & Chatwai Matha Temple is a very old temple situated at Puranapool, Hyderabad. Earlier, the first petitioner, who is the father of the second petitioner, approached the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, by filing an application seeking to recognize him as a Member of Founder’s Family of the said temple. Thereupon, the second respondent vide proceedings No.E/3931/93, dated 14.07.1998, allowed the said application by recording a finding that the first petitioner was a member of the Founder’s Family of the temple referred to above. As against the same, there was a suo motu Revision Petition, being R.P.No.263 of 1999, taken up by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, who in turn, by order, dated 02.08.2000, dropped the suo motu action by recording a finding that there are no valid reasons to interfere with the proceedings, dated 14.07.1998, issued by the second respondent. Further, the third respondent also carried the matter before the Regional Joint Commissioner by filing a revision, being R.P.No.33 of 2001, under Section 92 of the Act. Even the said revision petition was also dismissed by the Regional Joint Commissioner confirming the proceedings, dated 14.07.1998, issued by the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that as much as the issue, namely, whether they are members of the Founder’s Family of the temple referred to above was already decided earlier, by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 14.07.1998, which were already confirmed in Revision Petition No.33 of 2001 filed by the third respondent, and it became final, no further enquiry can be conducted on very same issue. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the revisional authority by his order, dated 31.03.2003, dismissed the revision petition filed by the third respondent, while keeping open to him to approach the competent forum for redressal of grievance, if any, and that in view of amendment made to Section 87 of the Act, the first respondent is empowered to resolve the dispute as to whether the first petitioner is a member of the Founder’s Family or not on the application filed by the third respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that as per the observations made by the revisional authority in the order, dated 31.03.2003, passed by him in the revision petition filed by the third respondent, it is open to the first respondent to adjudicate such dispute in exercise of power under Section 87(1) (h) of the Act. It is true that the provision under Section 87(1)(h) was added to the Statute by Act No.27 of 2002. With reference to the claim of the petitioners that they are members of the Founder’s Family of the subject temple, it is to be noticed that the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 14.07.1998, by referring to various earlier orders passed by the authorities concerned and also the order of the Director of Endowments and Additional Secretary, Board of Revenue, Kingkoti, Hyderabad, in File No.3233/D1/64, dated 31.12.1965, wherein it was recorded that as the subject temple was constructed and maintained by the ancestors of the first petitioner, he was declared as muthavalli of the subject temple, accepted the claim of the first petitioner that he is a member of the Founder’s Family. As against the said proceedings, there was a suo motu revision taken up by the Regional Joint Commissioner, who in turn, gone into the merits of the claim of the first petitioner and in view of the fact that various Court decisions establish that the first petitioner and his ancestors are in management of the subject temple, and as there are no grounds to interfere with the proceedings, dated 14.07.1998, issued by the second respondent, dropped such suo motu action. Even the separate revision filed by the third respondent aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 14.07.1998, issued by the second respondent, was also dismissed by the Regional Joint Commissioner by his order, dated 31.03.2003, in which, he observed that once the suo motu revision petition was dismissed and when such order was not questioned, it is not open for the third respondent to raise very same issue again. Added to the same, the revisional authority virtually accepted the findings recorded in the order, dated 02.08.2000 passed by him in dismissing the suo motu revision petition. Although the suo motu revision petition taken up by the revisional authority was rejected as early as on 02.08.2000, the third respondent has not questioned the same, as such, the proceedings, dated 14.07.1998, issued by the second respondent have become final. When once the earlier orders on very same issue have become final, it is not open for the first respondent to conduct enquiry on it again. If further enquiry is allowed pursuant to the impugned notice, it amounts to nullifying the earlier orders of the Regional Joint Commissioner dated 31.03.2003, by which, the revision petition filed by the third respondent was rejected confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who declared the first petitioner as the Member of the Founder’s Family of the subject Temple. Although the revisional authority made an observation to approach the competent authority for redressal of the grievance of the third respondent, as much as the proceedings of the second respondent dated 14.07.1998 were already confirmed by the revisional authority, it is not open to the third respondent to raise such issue once again disputing the claim of the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, no enquiry is permissible pursuant to the application filed in O.A.No.97 of 2004, which is registered on the application of the third respondent. Accordingly, notice, dated 22.10.2004, issued by the first respondent in O.A.No.97 of 2004 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd OCTOBER, 2010. kvni