HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO:1510 OF 2002 MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Between: Parepalli Srimanarayana. …Appellant. And: 1. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and three others. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO:1510 OF 2002 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri N.Chandradhar Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents nor there is any representation on their behalf. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner who filed this appeal aggrieved by the orders of the learned single Judge dated 26-6-2002 dismissing the writ filed by him wherein he sought to attack the correctness of the impugned notice dated 25-10-2001 wherein the 4th respondent informed the petitioner to hand over the charge to him. The case of the appellant, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in brief, is to the effect that having regard to the declaration already obtained in civil proceedings and which has become final, the question of handing over the charge or giving to anybody else does not arise. Therefore, the said notice is totally without jurisdiction. The learned single judge did not find favour of the petitioner and dismissed the petition only on the ground that the petitioner has got remedy under Section 87 of Act 30/87 to seek appropriate declaration. Hence, the appeal. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. There is serious dispute with regard to the civil proceedings where the appellant is declared as Hereditary Trustee and where the temple in question is declared as private temple. The proceedings in the Civil Court in O.S.No.2228 of 1974 and 44 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Guntur, ended in favour of the petitioner-appellant. The appeals filed against the said judgments were dismissed in A.S.Nos.262 of 1978 and 260 of 1978 and the Second Appeals in S.A.Nos.1085 of 1985 and S.A. (SR) No.22882 of 1984 were also dismissed by this Court and thus, the said decree has become final. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition 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 further observed that once the temple is notified under Section 6 © of the Act, the Endowment Department has got every right to manage the affairs of the temple. 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 Act 30/87 does not arise. In view of the same, the writ appeal is allowed and consequently, the order impugned in this writ appeal is set aside. No costs. ________________________ Justice B.PRAKASH RAO _______________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 17th August, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR. WRIT APPEAL NO:1510 OF 2002 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Dated 17th AUGUST, 2009