Disposed

Naina Hari Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2021WP/23325/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order in two writ petitions directed endowment authorities to conduct enquiries regarding alleged illegal alienation of temple property and the constitution of a Trust Board. The High Court declined to resolve complex factual issues via Article 226 proceedings, allowing sales to proceed only pending the outcome of the mandated enquiry with notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Endowment Commissioners to conduct enquiries with notice and hearing into temple property alienation and governance; sales by trustee to abide by enquiry results; no order as to c

Naina Hari Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6364 & 23325 of 2021

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Sri Suvarchala Sahitha Anjaneya Swami vari Temple, Saluru is said to have been published under Section 6(c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) at Sl.No.89 of the Institutions in Vizianagaram District.

¶4

The petitioner, who is said to be a member of the family which had founded the temple, has filed W.P.No.6364 of 2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the affairs of the said temple were being managed by an Executive Officer who had earlier been appointed on 07.07.1994 in pursuance of the directions of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.11788 of 1992. As no Executive Officer has been continuing subsequent to this appointment and as no Trust Board has been constituted for this temple, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.3 an 4 to constitute a Trust Board for this temple and for a direction to the 2^nd respondent for appointment of an Executive Officer of the Temple.

¶5

The petitioner in W.P.No.23325 of 2021 is said to have given a representation to the 4^th respondent on 11.03.2020 complaining of sale and alienation of property which belongs to the said temple by the hereditary trustee, who is presently

¶6

¶7

managing the temple. The said trustee is arrayed as the 5^th respondent. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in considering his representation and stopping the sale of the property of the temple, has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.23325 of 2021.

¶8

In the course of the proceedings in this writ petition, extensive pleadings and material has been placed before this Court by the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent in W.P.No.23325 of 2021 in support of their respective claims. Some of the official respondents have also filed their respective counter affidavits.

¶9

Without going into the details of the said pleadings and material, it is clear that there are complicated questions of fact, which require to be gone into. It is the view of this Court that these issues cannot be resolved by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

However, the fact remains that the property of Endowment Institution requires to be protected and representations have already been filed before the appropriate authorities under the Act, to go into these issues.

¶11

In these circumstances, the Commissioner of Endowments, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Visakhapatnam, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vizianagaram are directed to consider the representation of the

¶12

¶13

petitioner dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.No.23325 of 2021 relating to the alleged illegal alienations of the property belonging to the temple and the representation given by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2021 for constitution of a trust board and for appointment of an Executive Officer at the earliest.

¶14

In this regard, necessary enquiry shall be conducted by the said respondents after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in both the writ petitions as well as the person arrayed as the 5^th respondent in both the writ petitions.

¶15

In these circumstances, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶16

i) The Commissioner of Endowments shall consider the representation of the petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2020 for appointment of an Executive Officer to the temple, after due notice and opportunity of hearing being given to the 5^th respondent.

¶17

ii) The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Visakhapatnam shall consider the issue of constitution of a trust board for the temple, after due notice and opportunity of hearing being given to the 5^th respondent.

¶18

iii) Both these issues shall be considered and orders shall be passed within a period of three

¶19

¶20

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

iv) The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vizianagaram shall consider the representation dated 11.03.2020 given by the petitioner in W.P.No.23325 of 2021 and conduct necessary enquiry into the complaint made by the petitioner, after giving adequate opportunity to both the petitioner and the 5^th respondent to set out their case and to place such material as they deem fit.

¶22

v) The said enquiry shall also take into its consideration the stand of the 5^th respondent that the property in dispute is not Endowment property.

¶23

vi) This order shall not preclude either side from raising all such objections or grounds in relation to these enquiries.

¶24

vii) In the course of the proceedings of both these writ petitions, this Court had directed that any sale of disputed property made by the 5^th respondent would abide by the result of the writ petitions. This order shall apply to the enquiry also and any sale said to have been

¶25

¶26

made by the 5^th respondent and his family members shall abide by the result of the enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶28

shall stand closed.

¶29

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. 20.12.2021 SDP

¶30

¶31

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.6364 & 23325 of 2021

¶33

20-12-2021

¶34

SDP

Naina Hari Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naina Hari Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Satyanandh Vs The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department

Pasupuleti Jayaprada (Died) Vs Desireddy Raghava Reddy

Muktevi Srinivasa Rao Vs Alapati V.R. Satya Prasad

T Siddaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pedabaliyara Simhuni Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Pedda Peddanna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh