THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.4984 of 2002 DATED: 19.08.2010 Between:- Parepalli Srimannarayana .. Petitioner and The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in appointing person-in-management to Sri Seetharamanjaneya Swamy Vari Temple, Obulunaidupalem, Guntur. He claims that the subject temple was founded by his ancestors in their private lands and from them his predecessors in succession and later he succeeded to manage the temple as trustee. He states that, when there was demand for contribution by the endowment officials and interference with the possession of the temple, his father filed two suits in O.S.No.2228 of 1974 and 44 of 1977 before the District Munsif, Guntur, seeking declarations that the endowment officials have no right to demand contribution from the subject temple and that they have no right to appoint stranger trustee and interfere with his possession of the subject temple and its endowments, and also consequential permanent injunctions against the defendants in that regard. The said suits were decreed as prayed for, vide common judgment dated 07.04.1978, which was confirmed by the appellate Court as well as this Court in the second appeals. In the absence of any further appeal before the Supreme Court, the said judgment of the Civil Court became final and the subject temple continued to be the private temple of the petitioner’s family. While so, surprisingly, the 4th respondent issued notice dated 25.10.2001 to the petitioner, stating that he was appointed as person-in-management to the subject temple, by order of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, dated 31.08.2001, and the petitioner was, therefore, asked to handover the relevant records within a week from the date of service of notice. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not put on notice before passing the said order dated 31.08.2001 nor a copy of that order was served on him and that the temple being private temple and there being declarations by the Civil Court as noted above, the respondent authorities have no authority to appoint the 4th respondent as person-in-management of the subject temple. He, therefore, filed the present writ petition, seeking to declare the impugned action of the respondent authorities as also the notice issued by the 4th respondent as arbitrary and illegal. . The 4th respondent filed counter, stating that the subject temple was published under Section 6 (c) of the Act 17/66 and subsequently it was again published under Section 6 (c) of the Act 30/87, vide Rc.No.J3/42157/87 dated 12.11.1987, by the Commissioner of Endowments, and that in view of the overriding effect given to the new Act, once the temple is registered and published under Section 6 (c) of he Act, the Endowments Department has every right to appoint person- in-management to manage the affairs of the temple. Earlier, taking into consideration the aforesaid stand taken by the 4th respondent, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the present writ petition, by order dated 26.06.2002, observing that if the petitioner claims that the temple is a private temple, the remedy is to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Section 87 of the Act 30/87 for appropriate declaration by placing necessary evidence enclosing the judgments rendered in his favour and once the temple is notified under Section 6 (c) of the Act, the Endowments Department has got every right to manage the affairs of the temple. Questioning the said orders dated 26.06.2002, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1510 of 2002 before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ appeal on 17.08.2009, setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the writ petition again came up for consideration before this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. At the outset, it is trite to refer to the findings of the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 17.08.2009 passed in the writ appeal referred above, which are as under: “We are not in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. It is only in the absence of any orders evidencing that the temple in question is a private temple, parties can seek declaration under Section 87 of the Act 30/87. But in the instant case, the Civil Court has declared the temple in question as a private temple. The said finding recorded by the Civil Court was affirmed by the appellate Court as well as this Court in Second Appeals and the same has become final. Therefore, the question of directing the petitioner- appellant to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, for declaration under Section 87 of the Act 30/87 does not arise.” In view of the aforesaid categorical findings of the Division Bench of this Court that when once the Civil Court has declared the temple in question as a private temple and the same was affirmed by the appellate Court as well as this Court, the question of directing the petitioner to get a declaration under Section 87 of the Act 30/87 does not arise, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in appointing person-in-management to the temple in question cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly declared as arbitrary and illegal and the consequential impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent to the petitioner is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 19th August, 2010 IBL