Dismissed

Sri Kamakshamma Siddeswara Swamy Alaya Development and Seva Trust v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2021WP/257/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions challenging the constitution of a Trust Board for a registered temple. The Court held that while the petitioners cannot be impeded from participating, a Trust Board constituted under Section 15 is valid. The Court ordered authorities to extend the application period for interested persons to seek membership.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; authorities directed to extend time for applications by 15 days via corrigendum.

Sri Kamakshamma Siddeswara Swamy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.23619 of 2020

¶3

And

¶4

W.P.No.257 of 2021

¶5

COMMON ORDER:

¶6

Both these writ petitions have been filed against the action of the respondents in seeking to constitute a Board of Trustees for Sri Kamakshi Sahitha Siddeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Kalakada Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. As the issues raised in both these writ petitions are common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶7

The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.23619 of 2020 is that the petitioner-temple, which is said to be represented by the President of a registered Trust, is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to constitute a Trust for the temple. The basis for the grievance of the petitioner is that the endowment department never bothered with this temple and it was only certain families which had been taking the trouble of maintaining the temple and celebrating the Brahmotsavams, by bearing those costs. The contention raised is that the temple is purely a private temple belonging to the villagers and devotees and the temple cannot be taken over by the endowment department without issuing notices to concerned persons and after considering the objections.

¶8

The contentions in W.P.No.257 of 2021 is that the petitioner, which is a Trust, formed and registered in 2018, consisting of the founder family members and others, had objected to the constitution of a Trust Board on various grounds by way of a legal notice issued to the respondents. Thereafter, a notice was given to the petitioners to appear before the 3^rd respondent on 16.12.2020, to set out their objections and

¶9

RRR,J. W.P.No.23619 of 2020 & W.P.No.257 of 2021

¶10

¶11

thereafter the Respondents had initiated the process of constituting the Trust Board. However, since the notice, issued by the 3^rd Respondent, was received by the petitioners only on 15.12.2020 and they were required to travel a distance of more than 300 kms during the Covid-19 pandemic, the said notice cannot be treated as an adequate opportunity given to the Petitioners.

¶12

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that this temple had been registered under Section 38 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, Act 1966 (for short ‘the 1966 Act’) itself. Thereafter, it was again published as a temple under Section 6(c) (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, Act 1987 (for short ‘the 1987 Act’). It is stated that this temple has about Ac.7.00 of land and devotees are making offerings in a hundi, which is placed in the temple, and as such the contention of the petitioners that the temple is a private temple, which is being looked after by the members of certain families, is incorrect. It is further contended that the registration details of the temple, available both under the 1966 Act and 1987 Act, do not show that there is a founder of the temple or that there is a founder family. It is further stated that except making an averment that they are members of the founder family, none of the petitioners have taken necessary steps for being recognised as a member of the founder family under the provisions of the 1987 Act or as a hereditary trustee under the 1966 Act. In the absence of any such recognition, the question of dealing with the petitioners as members of the founder family would not arise. In any event, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments would be authorised and

¶13

RRR,J. W.P.No.23619 of 2020 & W.P.No.257 of 2021

¶14

¶15

entitled to constitute a Trust Board with 5 members where the temple falls under the category of Section 6 (c) (2) of the 1987 Act.

¶16

Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.23619 of 2020, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.257 of 2021 and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.

¶17

The contentions of the petitioners, in opposition to the constitution of Trust Board, are that the Temple is a private temple; the affairs of the temple are being looked after by the members of certain families who were also bearing the expenditure incurred for the activities of the temple as there is no separate income or assets available with the temple and there is no need for a Trust Board appointed by the Endowment authorities; in view of the fact that the temple has founder family members, the constitution of a trust board without taking their views and presence into account would be violative of the provisions of the Endowment Act 1987.

¶18

Though there is some dispute as to whether hundi collections are being used for the upkeep of the Temple, it cannot be denied that the Temple has assets in the form of about 7 acres of land. It is also not in dispute that the Temple is open to devotees from all sections of society. Further, as the temple has already been registered under the 1966 Act and also published under Section 6 (c)(2) of the 1987 Act, the contention of the petitioners that the temple is a private temple and that the endowments department had never recognised the temple or taken any interest in the temple cannot be accepted.

¶19

RRR,J. W.P.No.23619 of 2020 & W.P.No.257 of 2021

¶20

¶21

The case of the petitioners is that a trust has been formed to look after the affairs of the temple and as such there is no requirement for a separate Trust Board to be constituted. The Endowments Act, 1987, recognises only those Trust Boards which are constituted, under Section 15, by the authorities mentioned therein. The creation of a trust by way of a deed of trust, by devotees of the Temple, cannot supplant a trust Board constituted under Section 15 of the Act of 1987.

¶22

The Petitioners claim that the Temple has a Founder and the views of the members of his family, being the members of the petitioner herein, should be taken into consideration while constituting the Trust Board. Explanation-I to Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1987 defines a founder to be a person, who has been recognized as a hereditary trustee, under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1966 or a member of the family of such a person. However, none of the persons claiming to be members of the founder family were able to show such a recognition being granted either under the 1966 Act or under the 1987 Act. The Claim of the petitioners that there is a founder family for this temple cannot be accepted unless and until such recognition, stipulated under Explanation-I or Explanation-II of Section 17 (1) of the 1987 Act, is produced.

¶23

It must be held that though the members of the petitioner may have been participating in the affairs of the temple, they cannot seek a direction from this Court to interdict the constitution of a Trust Board for the temple. However, it would always be open to the members of the petitioner Trust and other interested persons to apply for being appointed as the members of the Trust Board that is proposed to be constituted and set out their contributions made to the Temple. The Respondent

¶24

RRR,J. W.P.No.23619 of 2020 & W.P.No.257 of 2021

¶25

¶26

Authorities shall take into account the contributions of such applicants to the affairs of the Temple, as set out in section 18 (c) of the Act of 1987 and the relevant Rules, while considering and deciding the applications received from interested devotees for appointment of members of the proposed Trust Board.

¶27

The writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Nothing in this judgement shall be construed as a finding that no person can be recognised as a member of the founder family, provided such an application is otherwise maintainable.

¶28

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶30

8^th September, 2021 Js

¶31

RRR,J.

¶32

After pronouncement of the order, Sri S. S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.23619 of 2020 submits that the members of the petitioner-temple may not be given an opportunity to make an application for being appointed as members of the Trust Board, as the period for making such applications has expired.

¶33

In the circumstances, the authorities shall issue a corrigendum to the initial notice extending the time for making applications, by a further period of 15 days from the date of issue of the said corrigendum, and consider all the applications made in this period along with the applications that have been received earlier.

¶34

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶35

8^th September, 2021 Js

¶36

RRR,J. W.P.No.23619 of 2020 & W.P.No.257 of 2021

¶37

¶38

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶39

W.P.No.23619 of 2020

¶40

And

¶41

W.P.No.257 of 2021

¶42

8^th September, 2021

¶43

Sri Kamakshamma Siddeswara Swamy Alaya Development and Seva Trust v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kamakshamma Siddeswara Swamy Alaya Development and Seva Trust v. The State of A.P.

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

V.Ajay Kumar Vs Sri. Rajsekhar, IAS

P. Malleswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Thunugtmtla Chakrapani Gupta and Co, Vs Mannava Subba Rao

M/s Tirumala Constructions Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.V.V. Surya Prasad Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

P Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh