IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * WRIT PETITION No. 21545 of 2006 Between: Gunturu Masthanaiah & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MP CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Endowments THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * WRIT PETITION No. 21545 of 2006 O R D E R : Heard Sri MP Chandramouli, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Govt.Pleader for Endowments representing Respondents 1 and 2. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not conducting the auction of lease hold rights of Ac:2-07 cents of land in survey no.116, 1B.44 of Patur village belonging to Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka swamy temple, Paturu, as illegal, void and consequently to direct them to auction forth with the lease hold rights of the said lands as other wise the interest of the temple would be seriously prejudiced and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. It is averred that there is an ancient temple of Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy 600 years old in the village Paturu. The said temple has an endowed property in an extent of Ac:2-07 cents of wet land and the income derived from the said land was being utilized for the maintenance of Poojari and nitya doopa, deepa, naivedya aradhana in the said temple. The said temple became dilapidated and with the interest taken by the petitioners and with their contributions and public donations the temple was renovated and many developments were made by spending about Rs.12,00,000=00. It is stated that the petitioners are major contributors. The first petitioner alone had contributed by way of cash and material to a tune of about Rs.4,00,000=00. It is in the interest of the temple that they are filing the present writ petition for the relief of auctioning the lease hold right of endowment lands by the respondents. There is no individual relief. The cause of action and the relief sought and respondents are same and such single writ petition is being filed. 4. Further it is stated that one Patur Rajagopal Rao and Vangavarapu Sankar Reddy father of the third respondent filed suit, OS.No.104 of 1972 against Kota Venkata Sivaiah the then Poojari of the temple for permanent injunction in respect of endowment land in an extent of Ac:2-07 cents of the temple. Sri Raja gopal claimed in the suit that his adoptive father and the ancestors are the hereditary trustees of the temple and they have been leasing out the temple lands and from out of the said lease amount the archaka was being paid that the second plaintiff was the lessee of the lands and the archaka was interfering with the cultivation. 5. It is stated that against the order appointing non-hereditary trustees by the Assistant Commissioner, the said Rajagopal Rao filed OP.No.106 of 1976 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and claimed that he shall be recognized as the hereditary trustee. The said OP after enquiry was dismissed on 01-9-1982 and appeal and revisions were also said to have been dismissed. 6. Further it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner by Proceeding No. A3/5976/98, dated 03-9-1998 has appointed a new non-hereditary trust board consisting of five persons and the first petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Trust Board on 14-11-1998. It is stated that the third respondent had been paying only one putty of paddy per year for the lands and that was being paid to the poojari of the said temple. The said lands would fetch not less than four putties of lease, the leasehold rights are put to auction. Therefore, the petitioners were requesting the first respondent to put the leasehold rights of the lands to public auction or permit us to do so. But the first respondent had done neither of the above. It is stated that the petitioners were being given an impression that the tenant is protected under the Tenancy Act. But having learnt that the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld two provisions of Section 82 of the Act 30/87 the petitioners made a representation dated 09-1-2006 to the first respondent to put the lease hold rights of the land to public auction. It was also brought to the notice of the first respondent that the recent auction of lease hold rights of Ac:1-87 cents of Sri Veera Bhadra Swamy Temple at Patur conducted by the first respondent fetched four putties of paddy per year. To this letter also there was no reply. Therefore, a further letter was addressed on 06-2-2006 to the first respondent requesting him to depute an officer to supervise the auction. The villagers also filed petition before the District Collector on 23-1-2006 complaining about the inaction. Consequently the first respondent by letter dated 14-2- 2006 directed the Inspector of Endowment to enquire and submit a report. But there was no further action. One of the villager, Sri Puneti Sankar Redy also sent a representation dated 23-8-2006 to the first respondent with copy marked to the Dy. Commissioner of Endowments. In spite of all the above stated efforts there is no positive action by the first and second respondents. 7. It is also stated that the Poojari cannot feed his family and perform the Dupa, Dupam, Naivedyam with one puty of paddy for years. The third erspondent is not paying even the meager makta for the last two years. He has converted the land into fish tank without any permission, as he is very rich and influential person. In fact the Poojari is begging in the village and the said fact was also published in news papers. In spite of the same, the authorities are not acting as per law. Under these circumstances, being the persons interested in the temple, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court. 8. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is filed praying for the appropriate reliefs. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, the brief history of the case has been narrated as hereunder: It is averred that Sri Varasiddhi Vinayaka Swamy Temple at Patur village of Kovvur Mandal had been published under section 6 [c] (ii) of the Endowments Act 30/87 and under the Administrative Control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore. The petitioner is the defacto trustee on the above temple and whose term of office expired long back. It is stated that when the first respondent had ben to Paturu village on 26-10-2006 and visited the temple, the temple is neat and tidy. The temple owns an extent of Ac;2-07 cents of Nitya Naivedya Deeparadhana and from a long time, the archakas who are rendering service in the temple are used to give the land to certain ryots and collecting makthas and rendering service in the temple and accordingly Sri Vangaparugu Venkatasesha Reddy is at present enjoying the land by payment of maktha and one puti paddy to the archakas. Sri Gunturu Masthanaiah, defacto trustee of the subject temple, who attended at the time of visit of the Inspector, Endowments Department, Kovvur had also stated that the philanthropic villagers are arranging for the performances of festivals and other rituals and that the temple had also been got reconstructed with public donations. They have also stated that the present tenant of the temple land i.e., archaka tenant did not pay maktha to the archaka since the last two years and also informed him that the maktha that is being payable by the tenant is also very low when compared with the makthas in the village to the similarly placed lands and therefore earnestly requested to lease out the land in open auction. Sri Kota Venkata Sivaiah, the present archaka of the above temple, who attended at the time of his visit had also agreed to lease out the land in public auction by arranging salary to him and Paditharam expenses but he did not give any statement or written application for the same. 10. It is stated that Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka swamy temple at Patur village of Kovvur Mandal, Nellore district is a notified temple under sect6ion 6 [c] (ii) of the Endowments Act [Act 30/87] at serial no.1034 in Proceeding R.Dis.No.J3/32234/98 dated 29-8-1998 of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and from that date the subject temple comes under the administration of the Endowments Department under the administrative authority of the Asst.Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore. For the first time, Trust Board was constituted to the subject temple vide Assistant Commissioner’s Proceedings in Rc.No.A3/5976/1998 dated 03-9-1998 with five persons and that Sri Guntur Masthanaiah, Petitioner no.1 was elected as Chairman of the Trust Board and the same was recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore, in D.Dis.No.A3/5976/1998 dated 28-11-1998 and from that date Sri Gunturu Masthanaiah, the writ petitioner had been holding the office as Chairman of the Trust Board of the subject temple and Trust Board term expired on 27-12-2001 and now he is continuing as defacto Chairman. The above temple is endowed with an extent of Ac:2-77 cents of wet land covered by s.no.116, 1B-44 at Patur revenue village of Kovvur Mandal, Nellore district. This land is intended for rendering archakatvam service and Dhupadeepa Naivedyams. It is also a fact that the temple had been reconstructed and renovated with public contributions. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the remaining averments, which are not specifically admitted herein. 11. It is stated that the subject temple came under the purview of the Endowments Department only from the year 1998, and therefore, under the administration of the Endowments Department as per the provisions of the Act 30/87. Hereditaty rights were abolished by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. There is no such declaration to Sri Katur Rajagopala Rao and Sri Vangavarapu Sankar Reddy as to the extent that they are hereditary trustee of the above temple. The allegations of the petitioner are incorrect. As long as the other allegations, it is between the archaka and tenant and the first respondent is not a party to the same. 12. Further it is stated that non-hereditary trust board was constituted to the above temple in the year 1998 and that the petitioner no.1 was selected as Chairman of the Trust Board and due to expiry of his term of office, he had been continuing now only in the capacity of defacto Chairman. The petitioners are put to strict proof of the remaining averments made in para no.4 of the affidavit and the same are remained. 13. It is stated that there are no-hereditary trustees to the subject temple and that the petitioner was appointed as trustee along with four others by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore in RC.No.A3/5976/1998 dated 03-9-1998 and he was elected as Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the same was recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. It is also a fact that the subject temple owns an extent of Ac:2-07 cents toward Dhupadeepa Naivedyam etc., and that the archakas used to collect makthas from the tenant at one putti of pady per year and rendering archakatvam service in the temple. It is stated that though the hereditary rights of office holders and servants were abolished by virtue of Act 30/87, exemption was granted under section 144 of the Act 30/87 in respect of the temple published under section 6 [c] (ii) of the Act 30/87. According to which, the possession of the lands from the archaka should not be disposed unless they give a written application to that effect that the lands held by them shall be leased out in public auction by the temple authorities and to fix up salaries to them. It is stated that the term of the present trust board expired by 14-1-2001. Notification had been issued on 23- 2-2006 for the constitution of the new Trust Board and applications have also been received. Inspector had submitted his report for consideration of amount on 27-1-2006. The further action is under process. Therefore, action is being taken to constitute trust board to the subject temple. It is further stated that if the present archaka expresses his willingness to put up the land in public auction for lease, the issue will be placed before the newly constituted Trust Board and further action will be taken as per the resolution passed by the Trust Board with regard to payment of salary in lieu of the lands held by him towards services. 14. It is stated that the request of the writ petition is to put the lease hold rights of the land in an extent of Ac:2-07 cents in open auction. But the trustees in office never collected makthas on the land in question from the archaka-tenant and that the archaka used to collect maktha from the tenant and therefore, the archaka had to take necessary legal steps for realization of maktha by any dues from his tenant. It is further stated that though the hereditary rights of office service holders and mirasidars were abolished under the Act 30/87, the lands held under the possession and enjoyment of archaka servicedars are not being disposed in view of exemption granted by the Government in respect of Section 144 of the Act in case section 6 [c] [ii] temples. Therefore, if the land in an extent of Ac:2-07 cents belonging to the above temple put to public auction for lease, the archaka had to give consent to that effect requesting for fixation of remuneration and that the matter had to be placed before the Trust Board of the temple and with their resolution, further action is to be taken in this regard. 15. As can be seen from the averments made in the counter- affidavit in para no.6 specific stand had been taken that though the hereditary rights of office holders and servants were abolished by virtue of Act 30/87, exemption was granted under section 144 of the said Act in respect of the temple published under section 6 [c] [ii] of the Act. According to which, the possession of the lands from the archaka should not be disposed unless they give a written application to that effect that the lands held by them shall be leased out in public auction by the temple authorities and to fix up salaries to them. It is stated that the term of the present trust board expired by 14-1-2001. Notification had been issued on 23-2-2006 for the constitution of the new Trust Board and applications have also been received. Inspector had submitted his report for consideration of amount on 27-1- 2006. The further action is under process. Therefore, action is being taken to constitute trust board to the subject temple. It is further stated that if the present archaka expresses his willingness to put up the land in public auction for lease, the issue will be placed before the newly constituted Trust Board and further action will be taken as per the resolution passed by the Trust Board with regard to payment of salary in lieu of the lands held by him towards services. 16. In the light of the specific taken in the counter-affidavit, let the respondents 1 and 2 take appropriate decision in this regard as early as possible in view of the urgency pleaded, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUSTICE P . S . NARAYANA . 04/12/2007. NB: Furnish CC of the Order tomorrow. B/o. IsL