IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1460 of 2009 Between: B. Sivanna & others. … Appellants And The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri D.V. Sasidhar for Sri V.T.M. Prasad Counsel for respondents 4-8: Sri J. Janakirami Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1460 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.12592 of 2007 are the appellants in this writ appeal filed against order dated 20.11.2009 in the said writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, permitted appellant No.3 to make an appropriate representation to respondent No.1 for payment of emoluments and that respondent No.1 shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record, we do not find any reason to disagree with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Though the appellants claimed that they are rendering Archakatvam in the temple in question, in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in the writ petition it has been stated that appellant No.3 alone has been rendering Archakatvam for about 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and that the other appellants have never been Archakas of the temple in question. In the face of the provisions of Section 35 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), even if appellant No.3 is working as Archaka, he cannot claim to retain the possession of the land belonging to the temple, but he is entitled to get the emoluments/remuneration fixed as an Archaka of the temple. This is the precise reason why the learned Single Judge permitted appellant No.3 to make a representation in this regard to respondent No.1. Though the learned counsel for the appellants made a strenuous effort to convince this Court that appellant No.3 is entitled to be in possession of the property in question till such time pay scale, as claimed, is fixed, we are not inclined to accept this contention because no such right inheres in appellant No.3 under the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We reiterate the direction given by the learned Single Judge that if a representation is made by appellant No.3 for fixing pay scale/remuneration, respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose of the same as early as possible. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.01.2010 ES