IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12218 of 2008 Between: Sri Landa Venkata Ramana S/o.Landa Suryanarayana Devalayam, Patha Adivivaram, R/o. 9-85, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, rep. by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in interfering with the administration of Sri Pydithallemma Ammavari Temple by the Petitioner, and respondents interference without any manner of right what so ever, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and direct the respondents not interfere with the administration and performing of annual festival in respect of Sri Pydithallemma Ammavari temple, Adivivaram, till R.P.No.17/02 before the 1st respondent as well as representation made by the Writ Petitioner on 9.5.2008 to the 1st respondent are disposed of. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- According to the petitioner, two hundred years ago, his ancestors established Sri Pydithallemma Temple in their village, Adivivaram and for twenty six years, his father used to conduct festivals at the Temple, and now, they are conducting the festivals, and the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Endowments recognized the petitioner as Trustee and Chairman of the Temple. While so, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, issued Notice dated 01.11.2002 inviting applications for constitution of Trust Board to the Temple. Against that notice, the petitioner filed Revision Petition in R.P. No.17 of 2002 before the 1st respondent-Commissioner, under Section 92 of the Act 30 of 1987 and the 1st respondent, by an order dated 8.11.2002, stayed the Notice directing the Assistant Commissioner to submit his remarks, and the Revision is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 9.5.2008 to the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, requesting to recognize him as hereditary Trustee, and now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 2nd respondent is neither considering his application dated 9.5.2008 nor permitting him to conduct festivals and perform rituals at the Temple. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stated that Simhachalam Devasthanam has a vast extent of landed properties endowed with erstwhile Rajahs of Vizianagaram Estate. After Estates Abolition, settlement enquiries were held in respect of the villages endowed with the Deity under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Thereafter, Inam enquiries held under Inam Abolition Act, 1956 in respect of 5 Inam villages, which are under the management of Devasthanam. Among those lands, there is a temple of Goddess viz. Sri Pydithalli Ammavari Temple in S.No.198/1 in an extent of Ac.0.14 cents situated in Adavivaram village which was covered by Ryothwari Patta issued under Section 7(1) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam in favour of the 2nd respondent-Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthnam, Simhachalam, and the said orders became final. The festivals of the village Goddess are being celebrated as per the tradition in vogue as determined by the village elders since long time, but as per the Register of properties maintained by Dewan to Raja Saheb under Vizianagaram Estate Management and subsequent property register maintained by Simhachalam Devasthanam, the village Goddess temple is shown as one among all sub-temples of Simhachalam Devasthanam. Hence, the Devasthanam has ownership over the Goddess Temple of Adivivaram village as its sub-temple. It is further stated in the counter that the Rajas of Vizianagarm are the Founder Trustees of Simhachalam Devasthanam since long time and the founder family members alone are to be considered as Trustees to sub-temples. It is further stated that the respondents have not given authorized document in favour of the petitioner for his claim as a Trustee or Poojari to the temple. Though the temple is being attended to by the petitioner by virtue of his traditional succession as Pujari, his satisfactory functioning and mere attendance to the administration and rituals of the temple, do not confer any ownership/trusteeship over the temple. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the leaned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the specific averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that a disputed question of fact with regard to the ownership/trusteeship over the temple in question is involved, for which, the petitioner has already preferred a Revision Petition, which is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Commissioner of Endowments is directed to dispose of the Revision Petition said to have been filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, in accordance with law, duly recording reasons as to whether the petitioner can be recognized as hereditary trustee of the Temple in question or not. It is needless to mention that till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th June, 2009 bcj