THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.12592 of 2007 Date : 20-11-2009 Between : B.Sivanna s/o. Naganna and others .. Petitioners and Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.12592 of 2007 ORDER: 1. This Court issued rule nisi on 18-6-2007. 2. W.P.M.P.No.22434/2009 filed by the proposed parties to come on record was ordered on 28-10-2009 by this Court. 3. Sri Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the respective counter affidavits and also the material papers placed before this Court and would maintain that inasmuch as these are Archakas, the rights of these Archakas are to be protected. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments representing respondents 1 and 2 had taken this Court through the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs. 5. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent would maintain that inasmuch as there is no acceptable material to show that these are rendering archakatvam service, no relief as such can be graned. 6. Sri Janaki Rami Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents 4 to 8 who were impleaded as parties, as aforesaid, made submissions in elaboration and also pointed out to the civil proceedings. 7. Heard the Counsel. 8. The writ petitioners filed the present Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in holding public auction of the leasehold rights of the land of an extent of Ac.15- 88 gts. in S.No.419 of Dudekonda village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool District which is under occupation of the petitioners under Service Inam without notifying the said land as Endowment property as required under Section 6(c) of A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in possession of the land of an extent of Acs.15-88 cts. in S.No.419 of Dudekonda village by setting aside the impugned notice issued by the single trustee of the 3rd respondent-temple and to pass such other suitable orders. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had been doing service to the 3rd respondent-temple as Archakas since 20 years and originally the land of an extent of Acs.15-88 cents in S.No.419 of Dudekonda village had been given to the 3rd respondent-temple on Inam service and the same had been given to the petitioners as they had been doing service to the temple as Archakas. It is further stated that originally the said land was not fit for cultivation as it was covered by bushes and rocks but however subsequently the petitioners had brought the same into cultivation. The petitioners’ names were also recorded in 10(1) Adangal as cultivators of the said land and had been cultivating the said land till date by raising dry crops. The petitioners had been rendering service to the 3rd respondent-temple with the income of the said land. 10. It is further stated that while so recently i.e., a week back, the Executive Officer of Peravali village had distributed pamphlets in the village and made beat of tom tom alleging that he was appointed as single trustee to the 3rd respondent-temple and conducting auction of leasehold rights in respect of the land of an extent of Acs.15-88 cents in S.No.419 on 19-6-2007 which is in the occupation of the petitioners since 20 years though the Executive Officer has no jurisdiction to conduct the auction as the 3rd respondent-temple does not come under the purview of Endowments as it was not notified as required under Section 6(c) of the Act. It is also further stated that the 3rd respondent –temple is a private temple and the land of an extent of Acs.15-88 cents in S.No.419 of Dudekonda village had been given by the donors to the temple 20 years back and the petitioners had been given the said land under service Inam as they are doing service to the temple as Archakas since 20 years and unless the temple is notified as contemplated under Section 6(c) of the Act, it does not come under the purview of the Act. It is also relevant to state that the petitioners were given the said land under service inam for rendering service to the 3rd respondent-temple and as such any inam granted to Archakas, service holders or other employees of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity in connection with the institution shall be deemed to be a personal gift to the Archakas, service holders or employees notwithstanding the grant of ryotwari patta under Inam Abolition Act. 11. It is also further stated that after the pamphlets had been distributed by the single trustee of the temple, the petitioners made a representation to the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioners were given the said land 20 years back under service inam and they had been rendering service to the 3rd respondent-temple as Archakas and had been cultivating the same. It is further stated that the petitioners also requested the 2nd respondent to direct the single trustee of the 3rd respondent-temple not to conduct auction of the leasehold rights of the land which is in occupation of the petitioners as he has no jurisdiction as the said land is not endowed property. 12. Further it is stated that the petitioners also filed O.S.No.41/2006 against third parties for permanent injunction as they tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners claiming as individual property and the said suit is pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Pathikonda. The petitioners had been cultivating the said land since 20 years by rendering service to the temple as Archakas and now the respondents cannot put the leasehold rights in auction as if the land belongs to Endowments without notifying the temple under Section 6(c) of the Act and as such the respondents have no jurisdiction to auction the leasehold rights of the land of an extent of Acs.15-88 cents which is in the occupation of the petitioners. Further it is stated that even if the respondents had notified as endowed property of the 3rd respondent-temple and proceeding under Explanation II to Section 2(22) of the Act, it shall not be deemed to be a religious and endowment property. The action of the respondents is behind the back of the petitioners as any inam granted to Archakas, service holders or other employees of a religious institution for the performance of any service or a charity in connection with the institution shall be deemed to be a personal gift to the Archakas, service holders or employees notwithstanding the grant of ryotwari patta as held by the Apex Court in P.V.M.R.D. Iyengar Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1] and as such the respondents have no jurisdiction to conduct the leasehold rights of the land of an extent of Acs.15-88 cents in S.No.419 which is under the occupation of the petitioners. 13. Further, specific stand had been taken that the action of the respondents in auctioning the leasehold rights of the land of an extent of Acs.15-88 cents in S.No.419 of Dudekonda village which was given to the petitioners under service inam is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and the same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section 6(c) of the Act. 14. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent specific stand had been taken that the allegation that the petitioners have been rendering service for 20 years as Archakas is incorrect. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool conducted enquiry on the instructions of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd petitioner had given a statement in writing that he is acting as archaka since three years and the other petitioners are not rendering archakatvam service. The other three petitioners had given a statement in writing that they are only cleaning the temple and that they were appointed by the then self styled trustee since ten years. Further it is stated that the averment that the petitioners are in possession of the land from 20 is false. In fact the petitioners are in possession of the land since 1410 to 1412 Fasli as per the revenue records. Earlier one D.Ravinder Reddy and another were in possession of the lands as per the Revenue records. It is also further stated with regard to paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that it is true that the Executive Officer of Paravalli group proposed to auction the leasehold rights in public auction on 19-6- 2007. The allegation that the temple is a private one and the same is not published under Section 6(c)(II) of the Act and that the Executive Officer is not competent to conduct the auction is not correct. The temple in question was published under Section 6(c)(II) of the Act in Sl.No.3405 in Commissioner R.Dis.No.J3/46043/87 dated 17-8- 1987. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool in his office proceedings Rc.No.A1/1841/2007 dated 31-5- 2007 appointed the Executive Officer, Paravalli group temples as a single trustee to the subject temple. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool instructed the single trustee to take possession of the lands from unauthorised persons and auction the leasehold rights as per Rules. The single trustee proposed to conduct the auction of the leasehold rights as per the direction of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool. Further it is stated that the allegation that the land of Acs.15.88 cts. Is a service inam granted to the Archakas and it is to be deemed to be personal gift to the Archakas is false. The land has all along been registered in the name of the deity in all the revenue accounts and pattadar pass books are also issued in favour of the deity. 15. It is also further stated that the alleged representation made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool requesting him to instruct the single trustee not to conduct pubic auction is not traceable and therefore the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The petitioners filed O.S.No.41/2006 in respect of the lands against a third party in the court order of Junior Civil Judge, Pathikonda and the learned Junior Civil Judge gave a finding that the petitioners are not Archakas of the temple and they are no way connected to the temple or the lands as per the report given by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kunrool. The allegation that the land is given as service inam is false. It is also stated that though the 3rd petitioner is rendering archakathavam in the temple, he is not entitled to be in possession of the lands. Similarly, the other petitioners who are rendering services of cleaning the temple are also not entitled to be in possession of the land. The single trustee is entitled to auction the leasehold rights I the land, realise the income and pay wages to the petitioners and meet the other expenditure and he petitioners have no right on the land. 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent almost similar averments had been made. It is stated that the 3rd respondent- temple was published under Section 6(c) of the Act under publication No.3405 through the proceedings of the Commissioner in R.Dis.No.13/46043/87 dated 17-8-1987. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent was appointed as Executive Officer and single trustee to the 3rd respondent-temple. The 3rd respondent-temple is the owner of the land in question measuring an extent of Acs.15-88 cents in Sy.No.419 of Dudekonda village which was donated by one D.Ramalingareddy to the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam. The successors of D.Ramalingareddy are in possession of the land and maintained the Devasthanam by the income arising out of the land. 17. Further it is stated that the petitioners are not the Archakas of the 3rd respondent-temple. Earlier one Nambi Narasimhaiah s/o.Hanumanthaiah of Kothiralla village was doing poojas from 1964 to 1970. After that Tapala Telugu Eranna performed till his demise and after his death his son-in-law one Dastagiri acted as archaka upto the year 2003. From 2003 onwards one Telugu Ramanjaneyulu of Dudekonda village was engaged temporarily as archaka on honorarium basis. Further it is stated that it is not true to say that the petitioners are Archakas of the 3rd respondent-temple and the lands in question of an extent of Acs.15-88 cents were not given to the petitioners for their performance as Archakas. They are not the tenants of the 3rd respondent-temple. The petitioners filed O.S.No.41/2006 before the Junior Civil Judge, Pathikonda against D.Chinna Reddy, D.Chandra Sekhara Reddy, D.Venkata Ranga Reddy, D.Srinivasa Reddy, D.Ramalinga Reddy and D.Bhaktavatsala Reddy who are the successors of D.Ramalinga Reddy claiming that the petitioners are in possession of the land as Archakas of the 3rd respondent-temple and restraining them from interfering with the land and the learned Junior Civil Judge by order dated 13-7-2006 in I.A.No.73/2006 in O.S.No.41/2006 dismissed the plea of the petitioners. 18. Further it is stated that the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-temple issued a notice to conduct public auction on 19-6- 2007 for the leasehold rights of the land in question of an extent of Acs.15-85 cents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition with false allegations. This Court passed the following interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.15684/2007 dated 18-6-2007: “The auction proposed to be conducted on 19-6-2007 may go one, but the same shall not be confirmed”. It is further stated that due to the order of this Court the 3rd respondent had not conducted the public auction. 19. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 8, it is stated that originally the subject land belongs to the father of the 4th respondent late D.Ramalinga Reddy of Dudekonda village and during the lifetime of his father he donated the subject land in favour of the 3rd respondent-temple and late D.Ramalinga Reddy had five sons including the 4th respondent and at present the 4th respondent is the only surviving son. It is further stated that the donation of the subject land by the father of the 4th respondent is well known to one and all in the village and the income from the said land is being utilised for performing various functions in the temple and even the Adangal for the Faslies 1397, 1400, 1402, 1406 and 1407 clearly show that the names of D.Janaki Rami Reddy and others in the possession column and the petitioners were never in possession as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition or before and the petitioners by suppressing the material facts with a mala fide intention to gain wrongfully approached this Court with unclean hands. Further, the petitioners never acted as poojari of the 3rd respondent-temple and one Sri Nambi Narasimhaiah s/o.Hanumanthaiah of Kothiralla village was doing pooja from 1964 to 1970 and subsequently there was no regular poojari but one Tapala Telugu Eranna was doing pooja in the temple during important functions like Ugadi, Dasara etc. After the death of Telugu Eranna and his son-in-law viz., Dasthagiri was doing pooja upto the year 2003. Subsequently he left our village and as such one Telugu Ramanjaneyulu of Dudekonda village was engaged to do pooja and since 2003 he is performing poojas on payment of honorarium basis. 20. Further it is stated that the petitioners had filed the suit O.S.No.41/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pathikonda and the application in I.A.No.73/2006 for grant of injunction was dismissed on 13-7-2006 on merits after hearing both sides holding that the petitioners are not in possession of the subject land. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal C.M.A.No.33/2006 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 3-12-2008 confirming the order of the trial court. The petitioners having failed to succeed in the civil proceedings, in a desperate attempt suppressing the material facts filed the present Writ Petition and obtained interim orders. It is further stated that these respondents are not claiming any sort of right for resumption of the land but as the said land was dedicated to the 3rd respondent and the said land was notified as endowment land as per Section 6(c) of the Act, the petitioners have nothing to do with the subject land as they are not Archakas or in possession of the subject land at any point of time and the petitioners had not disclosed when they were appointed as Archakas and by whom and by whom the subject land was given to them. Subsequent to the filing of the implead application by these respondents, as an after the writ petitioners came up with additional affidavit alleging that the brother of the 4th respondent late Chenna Reddy had given the land to them as a single trustee. In fact, nobody appointed Chenna Reddy as single trustee and the petitioners had not filed any document in the civil proceedings to show that the subject land was given to them by late Chenna Reddy. Since then there had been some disputes between these respondents and the sons of late Chenna Reddy and the sons of late Chenna Reddy intentionally gave false affidavits in favour of the petitioners and the same clearly shows that the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands alleging that the subject land is not notified as endowment land and in fact the petitioners are in the habit of stage managing when the authorities of the Endowments Department visit the temple for inspection. 21. It is also further stated that the issue had been widely published in the newspaper stating that some unauthorised persons are enjoying the lands of the 3rd respondent-temple. The petitioners who have no manner of right, claim or interest whatsoever in the subject land filed a false and fictitious suit and failed to succeed in their attempts and rushed this Court falsely representing that they are in possession since 20 years and the said contention had been rejected by the civil Court as well as the appellate Court. It is further stated that the petitioners are agricultural labourers but not Archakas either by profession or by caste. These respondents being donors of the subject land have no objection whatsoever to conduct public auction in the better interest of the temple since the extent of land is Acs.15-88 cents and it would fetch better income for the maintenance and development of the 3rd respondent temple and further there is a proposal in the village for construction of a kalyana mandapam for the purpose of convenience of the villagers out of the income derived from the subject land. 22. The identity card issued in favour of B.Nagaraju by the Commissioner of Endowments Department, Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Hall Ticket issued by the Controller of Examinations, Endowments Department for writing the examination, resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Receipt dated 24-6-2006 and the Receipt issued by the Engineering Workshop also had been placed before this Court. 23. A reply affidavit was filed in detail. 24. It is needless to say that B.Nagaraju is the 3rd writ petitioner. The proceeding dated 16-6-1997 reads as hereunder:- Proceedings of the Founder Trustee of Sri Chenna Kesava Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Dudekondavillage, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District Present : Sri D. Chenna Reddy Rc.No.Nil/1997 Dt.16-6-1997 Sub: Endowments Department – Establishment – Sri B.Nagaraju s/o.B.Naganna – Appointment as archaka to Sri Chennakesava Anjaneya Swamy temple – Dudekonda village, Pattikonda Mandal,Kurnool District – orders – Issued. Ref: Application dated 1-6-1997 from B.Naga Raju. *** Sri B.Naga Raju s/o.B.Naganna is hereby appointed as a Archaka in the adjusting post of Archaka in the Establishment of Sri Chenna Kesava Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Dudekondavillage, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District, on a rendering temple service and enjoy the temple Inam land bearing Sy.No.419-15 situated at Dudekonda village of Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. Sd/- Founder Trustee (D.Chenna Reddy) Strong reliance was placed on the decisions in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P.and others [2] and the decision referred (1) supra. 25. Elaborate submissions had been made in relation non- placing of acceptable material to prove relating to the rendering of archakatvam service. In the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, it is no doubt true that the writ petitioners as such are not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for. But, however, in the light of some material which had been placed by the 3rd petitioner, without expressing any further opinion, let the 3rd petitioner make an appropriate representation to the 1st respondent in this regard and let the 1st respondent consider the same in the light of the facts and circumstances. Except giving liberty to the 3rd petitioner to make such representation, especially in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent and also in the light of the prima facie findings recorded by the civil court, no doubt at interlocutory stage, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in the present Writ Petition. 26. Subject to the aforesaid liberty given to the 3rd petitioner of making a representation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date : 11-2009 AM [1] AIR 1996 S.C. 966 [2] AIR 1997 S.C. 3702