IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH (13TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WP No.27253 of 2005 & Civil Revision Petition No.1766 of 2009 Between: Peddi Venkata Subbamma (died) & others … Petitioners And: Sri Chennakesava Swamyvari Temple, Edlapadu & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.27253 of 2005 & CRP No.1766 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: WP No.27253 of 2005 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 05.09.2005 in ATA No.91 of 1998 on the file of the Appellate Tenancy Tribunal, Guntur, as illegal and arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1987 (‘for short the Endowments Act’) and A.P. Tenancy Act 1956. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. According to the 4th petitioner, who filed affidavit in support of the writ petition, his father P.Vengaiah, was the cultivating tenant of an extent of Ac.10.70 cents belong to the first respondent-temple since 1972 and there after the petitioners have been cultivating the same each an extent of about Ac.1.00 of land. The first respondent-Temple filed ATC No.9 of 1995 before the Special Officer, Mangalagiri for fixation of fair rent at Rs.3,000/- per acre alleging that the prevailing maktha in the area is Rs.6,000/- per acre and the petitioners are getting income of Rs.12,000/- per acre every year. The petitioners filed counter opposing the said application, inter-alia on the ground that the land is not having any source of irrigation and as such the petitioners are raising only dry crops like, jonna, nuvvu and minumu etc. The Special Officer by order dated 08.09.1995 fixed maktha of Rs.32,620/- for the entire land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed ATA No.91 of 1998 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, Guntur. They also filed Exs.B.1 to B.5 in support of their claim that the rent claimed is not fair. The Tenancy Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and fixed the rent at Rs.2,500/- per acre per year. The petitioners further contended that the Act being a comprehensive Code dealing with all the temples and their properties, A.P. Tenancy Act is not applicable to the temple lands and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tenancy Tribunal and Appellate Tenancy Tribunal are without jurisdiction. 4. Earlier, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage by order dated 23.12.2005 holding that the impugned proceedings in ATC No.9 of 1995 and ATA No.91 of 1998 have become non-est in law and the said orders are not enforceable and observing that the first respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action under Endowments Act alone. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein filed WA No.1092 of 2006 on the ground that the impugned order in the writ petition was passed without notice to the respondents. By order dated 01.11.2006, the said writ appeal was allowed setting aside the order dated 23.12.2005 and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. 5. Subsequent to the remand, notice was ordered to the respondents and they entered appearance, but no counter is filed. 6. The first respondent-Temple filed ATC No.9 of 1995 under section 6 of the A. P. (A.A.) Tenancy Act for fixation of fair rent at Rs.3,000/- per acre. The petitioners herein opposed the same and after enquiry, the Special Officer, fixed the fair rent at Rs.32,620/- for the entire extent of Ac.10.70 cents and on appeal by the petitioners, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the fair rent and fixed the same at Rs.2,500/- per acre. The present writ petition is filed assailing the said orders on the ground that the Tenancy Act has no application in respect of the temple lands. 7. The petitioners also complained that they filed an application in IA No.3461 of 2001 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC during the pendency of the appeal seeking permission to file certain documents by way of additional evidence, to be marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5. The Appellate Tribunal has not considered the same. The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal however makes a reference to Exs.B.1 to B.3 and reduced the fair rent to Rs.2,500/- per acre for an extent of Ac.10.70 cents, subject to measurements of the land. 8. Meanwhile, temple authorities filed OS No.177 of 2008 against the petitioners herein for recovery of arrears of maktha. In the said suit, the petitioners filed IA No.1210 of 2008 under section 10 CPC for stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of WP No.27253 of 2005. By order dated 06.02.2009, the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed CRP No.1766 of 2009. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first respondent-Temple is a public temple and the subject lands are endowed to the said temple and therefore, the provisions of the Tenancy Act have not applicable in view of the Endowments Act. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the first respondent-Temple is a private temple exclusively belong to the family of the respondents since generations dating from 1894 when the temple was constructed and idol was installed by the grand father of the respondents and the subject lands were also endowed by him for the maintenance and up keeping of the said private family temple as per the Will and Testament dated 05.01.1940. The respondent therefore would contend that the temple being private family temple and the lands being private endowment, they do not fall within the ambit of Endowments Act and therefore the provisions of Tenancy Act are applicable. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents from the beginning has been that the temple is a private temple. In the tenancy application itself, they have stated that Sri Chennakesava swamyvari Temple, Edlapadu village, is a private temple and exclusively belonging to the family of the petitioners therein. The said averments have not been denied specifically in the counter filed by the petitioners herein in the ATC. The learned Special Officer also proceeded on the footing that the temple is a private temple of the respondents herein. The petitioners have not placed any material in support of their contention that the temple is a public temple. In para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the Endowments Act is a comprehensive code dealing with all the aspects of temples and their properties and the A.P. Tenancy Act is not applicable to the temple lands. The said contention however remains untenable in the absence of any material to show that the subject temple is an institution coming within the purview of the Endowment Act. When that is so, the operation of the provisions of the A.P. Tenancy Act 1956 cannot be excluded in respect of the subject temple and consequently, the Special Officer under the Tenancy Act and the Appellate Tribunal would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 12. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned orders passed by the Special Officer and the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal are sustainable and they are not liable to be set aside. However, any observations made herein above, shall not come in the way of disposal of the suit OS No.177 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, on its own merits. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the civil revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 13.12.2011 bss