THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.8519 of 2002 BETWEEN: Sangundhar Kula Vellathur Marabinar Sangam Sathram, Rep. by its President Sri S.M.Subramanyam …. PETITIONER And 1. The Commissioner of Endowments Department of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others. …. RESPONDENTS ORDER: 1. Petitioner claims to be an association registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Societies Act. It has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Endowments Department made in file No.Camp Rc.No.I/Srikalahasti, dated 3.03.2002 under which a direction has been issued to the Assistant Commissioner Endowment Department, Chittoor, to take possession of certain Choultries/mutts including the one by name Sorakayalapallivari Choultry, Nehru Road, situated near Srikalahastheeswara Swamivari Devasthanam, and hand over to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam. 2. The challenge to the said order is made mainly on the ground that the petitioner-association is an independent entity and has nothing to do with Sorakayalapallivari Choultry. The petitioner states that it has been established for the welfare of the members belonging to weaver’s community in Srikalahasthi and its surrounding places. The members of the community hailed from the neighbouring Tamil Nadu State and after they settled down in Srikalahasthi area their community is known as Sengundhar Community. The community follows its own customs and worships Srikalahastheeswara Swamy as their deity. They have constructed a guesthouse known as Kikala Satram and Sengundhar Kula Satram in premises bearing Nos.3/802 to 3/804 under the municipal assessment Nos.3855 and 3856, for the convenience of the pilgrims visiting the temple. The petitioner-association has been managing the property. 3. The grievance of the petitioner-association is that though the petitioner-association has its own identity and the guesthouse is mainly meant for the community people, the respondent authorities are interfering with their rights without authority of law. The petitioner-association therefore has challenged the impugned order dated 3.03.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments to take over the Choultry for being handed over to Srikalahastheeswara Swamyvari Devasthanam. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the Executive Officer of the temple, the 3rd respondent herein, seeking to justify the proposal to hand over the Choultry to the temple. It is his case that the petitioner-association does not have any right over the premises, and at any rate, they have not filed any material to prove their right over the subject Choultry. There is only one Choultry by name Sorakayalapallivari Choultry. It has been in existence even prior to the Endowments Act 7/1966 and registered under the said Act. The institution has been published under Section 6 (c) (i) of the 1987 Act in the A.P. Gazette dated 22.12.1988 at serial No.144. It is further stated that there is no Choultry in existence in the name of Senguntharkula Vellathur Morabinar Satram. The 3rd respondent, further states that the petitioner-association has no Choultries anywhere in Srikalahasthi Town. Therefore according to the 3rd respondent the petitioner-association has no right to oppose the handing over of the Sorakayalapallivari Choultry to Srikalahasthi temple. Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed counter affidavits. 5. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have made submissions based on the aforesaid facts. 8. From the aforesaid facts it emerges that there is a serious controversy as to the existence and identity of the petitioner-association on the one hand and Sorakayalapallivari Choultry on the other. While the assertion of the petitioner-association is that it has been in existence for over five decades, it is equally the assertion of the 3rd respondent that there is only one institution, viz., Sorakayalapallivari Choultry. 9. Since there is a factual dispute over the existence of both the institutions, it is appropriate that the Commissioner ought to have put the petitioners on notice before passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no such notice was given to the petitioner- association. Needless to say that if an opportunity had been given, the petitioner-association would have placed material to prove its existence and that it is a different institution from the other institution, viz., Sorakayalapallivari Choultry. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Endowments in file No.Camp Rc.No.I/Srikalahasti, dated 3.03.2002 in so far as it relates to Sorakayalapallivari Choultry, and remand the matter for fresh consideration. The Commissioner shall reconsider the matter and pass an appropriate order as per law after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-association and the 3rd respondent herein. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 12. In view of disposal of writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10587 of 2002 is dismissed as unnecessary. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 16th October, 2012 Js.