THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10848 of 2002 ORDER: The grand-father of the petitioner had two sons, by name, Dhanumjaya Devar, the father of the petitioner, and Dharmalinga Devar, the father of the 6th respondent. That family was rendering the service of Tiruchoornalu, i.e., playing of a musical instrument in the spiritual ceremonies of Sri Vedanarayanaswamy Temple, Nagalapuram, Chittoor District, the 5th respondent herein. After the death of the grand-father of the petitioner, such rights were being exercised by the two branches of Dhanumjaya Devar and Dharmalinga Devar. According to the petitioner, it is a hereditary right. The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), brought substantial changes in the law, relating to Hindu Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The hereditary rights were abolished and the persons, who were holding hereditary offices, on the relevant date, which fell in the year 1986, were made eligible to be appointed, on salary. There is some dispute, as to who among the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 6th respondent, on the other hand, were rendering the services as on the relevant date. After the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment, as to the validity of the various provisions of the Act, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.19336 of 1997, seeking a direction to the 5th respondent, to permit him to render the services, as Mirasidar. Since the Temple was under the control and administration of the Turumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short ‘the T.T.D.’), it was also impleaded as party. The writ petition was disposed of, on 30-12-1997, directing that the petitioner and the 6th respondent shall present their claims before the Commissioner of Endowments, the 1st respondent herein, who, in turn, shall adjudicate the dispute, in exercise of power under Section 87(1) (e) of the Act. It was further directed that the T.T.D shall appoint the person, in whose favour the 1st respondent passes an order, for performing the functions. The 1st respondent passed an order dated 29-08-2001, directing the T.T.D. to pass orders upon the respective claims made by the petitioner and the 6th respondent, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in W.P.No.638 of 1987 dated 19-03- 1996. The Executive Officer of the T.T.D., passed an order dated 03- 06-2002, permitting the 6th respondent to perform the duties on sambhavana basis of Rs.1,300/- per month, and not as a measure of regular appointment. The petitioner challenges the said order, on various grounds. The petitioner submits that the 1st respondent was not justified in conferring the power upon the T.T.D., to pass orders, and, it runs contrary to the specific directions issued by this Court, in W.P.No.19336 of 1997. He further contends that, as on the notified date, he was performing Tiruchoornalu, and with the abolition of hereditary rights, he was entitled to be appointed on a fixed salary. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the T.T.D. Detailed reference is made to the periods, during which, the respective branches were performing the duties. It is stated that the impugned order was passed on a direction issued by the 1st respondent, in terms of the relevant provisions of law. Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, learned Standing Counsel for the T.T.D., and learned counsel for the 6th respondent. The petitioner, on the one hand, and the 6th respondent, on the other hand, have common ancestors. There is no dispute that their family was rendering the services of Tiruchoornalu at the 5th respondent-Temple. With the passage of time, the services were being rendered in turns, by the two branches of the family. Both of them represent the respective branches. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.19336 of 1997, claiming that, he alone is entitled to be appointed on regular basis, for rendering the services. Since it involved adjudication of disputed questions of fact, this Court required the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 87 of the Act. In the ordinary course, the concerned Deputy Commissioner is the authority, to adjudicate the disputes under Section 87 of the Act. The 1st respondent is conferred with the power to adjudicate such disputes, if they pertain to the Temples, under the control of the T.T.D. The 4th respondent is one such Temple. Therefore, the petitioner and the 6th respondent were directed to approach the 1st respondent. Accordingly, they filed claims, which, in turn, were taken up, as O.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1998. The 1st respondent was discharging the adjudicatory powers under Section 87 of the Act. There was no question of delegation of such powers to any authority. For reasons best known to him, he has conferred such powers upon the Executive Officer of the T.T.D. The petitioner, or the 6th respondent ought to have objected for such delegation, or conferment of powers. On his part, the Executive Officer passed an order dated 03-06-2002, recognizing the right of the 6th respondent. The Executive Officer of the T.T.D. does not figure as authority for the adjudication of disputes, under Section 87 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by him cannot be sustained in law, though it was passed at the instance of the 1st respondent, and that the parties to the proceedings did not raise any objection. Mere consent of the parties does not confer jurisdiction upon the T.T.D. In the recent past, the Act was amended, providing for an Endowments Tribunal for adjudication of disputes, under Section 87 of the Act, and the Tribunal has since been constituted. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 03-06-2002, passed by the Executive Officer of the T.T.D., is set aside. The proceedings, in the form of O.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1998, shall be taken up by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, and the petitioner shall help in reconstructing the file, if it is not available with the office of the 1st respondent. If the Tribunal so feels, it can re-number the proceedings. The claims shall be adjudicated, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-01-2011. KO