Dismissed

Ganji Subba Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2023WP/38834/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging the endowment department's order recognizing Respondents 7 to 11 as hereditary archakas. The Court held that since an effective alternative remedy existed under the Act via the Endowments Tribunal or revision, the writ petition was barred. Petitioners were directed to avail the alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 or file revision under Section 92 of the Act; Writ Petition disposed of without costs.

Ganji Subba Rao Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 38834 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ganji Subba Rao, S/o. Veera Venkaiah, Age 57 years, Rio. H.No. 1-11 Bhimadole Village Mandal, Eluru District.

¶8

Chilaparthi Rama Raidu, S/o. Krishna Murthy Age 65 years, R/o. H. No. 6-16, Polasanipalli Village Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of AP, rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Arnaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Commissioner of Endowments, Gollpudi, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department Kakinada, Kakinada District.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Eluru, Eluru District.

¶15

The Inspector, Endowments Department Eluru, Eluru District.

¶16

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Polasanipalli Village, Bhimadole Mandal Eluru District.

¶17

Vundi Malleswara Maruthi Vara Prasad, S/o. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Aged about 62 years Polasanipalli Village, Bhirnadolc Mandal Eluru District.

¶18

Vundi Sanka Vijaya Bhaskaram, S/o. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Aged about 59 years H. No. 2-17, Polasanipalli Village Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District.

¶19

Vundi Veera Badra Prasad Roy, S/o. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Aged about 54 years R/o. H. No. 1-62, Polasanipalli Village Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District.

¶20

Vundi Dhavantri, S/o. Ramalingeswara Sarma Aged about 54 years, R/o. Shiavalayam Street, Polasanipalli Village Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District.

¶21

Vundi Srinivasa Mhakaleswara Naga Subhas Chandra Bose, S/o. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Aged about 49 years, R/o. Shivalayam Street, Polasanipalli Village Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Pro.in Computer No. B51391382/2021 dated 16.12.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, ultra vires, contrary to the procedure established by law, violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of provision of the Andhra

¶24

Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rule made there under and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice.

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Pro,in Computer No. B5139138212021 dated 16.12.2021 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI P. RADHIKA, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI B.V. KRISHNA REDDY

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : Mls. PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 & 10 : SRI D.V. SASIDHAR

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.11

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.38834 OF 2022

¶38

Between:

¶39

Ganji Subba Rao, S/o. Veera Venkaiah, Aged 57 years, R/o. H.No.1-11, Bhimadole Village & Mandal, Eluru District and another.

¶40

... Petitioners

¶41

AND

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and ten (10) others.

¶43

Respondents

¶44

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K.Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP for Endowments Counsel for respondent Nos.6 Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.7 : Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent No.8 : M/s. Pillix Law Firm Counsel for respondent Nos.9 & 10 : Sri D.V.Sasidhar Counsel for respondent No.11

¶45

ORDER

¶46

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶47

of India is filed seeking the following relief:

¶48

"... to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Pro.in Computer No.B5/391382/2021

¶49

Page 2 of 7

¶50

SRSJ W.P.No.38834 of 2022

¶51

dated 16.12.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, ultra vires, contrary to the procedure established by law, violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of provision of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, and rule made there under and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass such other suitable order or orders ..."

¶52

In the affidavit it was contended inter-alia that the^1St petitioner is devotee of the 6t h respondent Institution and also worked as Managing Trustee of the temple. The^211d petitioner is also a devotee of the^{6t 11} respondent temple. The^3rd respondent recognized respondent Nos.7 to 11 as archakas and entered their names in the property register of the^6t11 respondent temple. The 3rd respondent failed to adhere to the procedure mandated under G.O.Ms.No.439 of the Revenue (Endowments-1) Department, dated 21.10.2019.

¶53

Respondent No.3 filed the counter affidavit. It was contended inter-alia that the 6th respondent temple was published under Section 6(b)(iii) of the Act 30 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short `the Act') and the same is under administrative control of the 3rd respondent. Temple

¶54

Page 3 of 7

¶55

SRSJ V.P.No.38834 of 2022

¶56

was registered under Section 38 of Act 2 of 1927 and was approved vide Board order No.7220 dated 16.11.1950 in the approved statutory register of the^6th respondent temple. The names of archakas were mentioned as Vundi Nagaiah (great grandfather of respondent Nos.7 to 11) and Vundi Subbarao (grandfather of respondent Nos.7 to 11).

¶57

The 6t}1 respondent temple was also registered under Section 25 of the Act, 1951 and the same was approved by the 4th respondent in the year 1960. In the register, the names of present archakas were mentioned as Vundi Mahankalaiah, Vundi Subbarao and the working archaka as Vundi Ramalingeswara Sharma (son of Mahankalaiah and father of respondent Nos.7 to 11). If the petitioners are aggrieved against entries in the property register, they have got right to file revision under Section 92 or Section 93 of the Act before the Government.

¶58

Respondent Nos.7 to 11 together made representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department - 4th respondent seeking restoration of hereditary rights of archakatvam services in the 6th respondent temple and the 4th respondent submitted report in letter No.27/2019 dated

¶59

Page 4 of 7

¶60

SRSJ W.P.No.38834 of 2022

¶61

14.12.2019. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada - 3rd respondent vide proceedings Nos.B5/391382/2021 dated 16.12.2021, issued instructions to enter the names of archakas in the property register of the temple invoking Section 43(10) of the Act 30 of 1987. Petitioners also got effective alternative remedy by approaching the Endowments Tribunal and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶62

Respondent No.6 filed separate counter affidavit reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent.

¶63

Heard Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Smt P.Radhika, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the^6th respondent.

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments reiterated the

¶65

Page 5 of 7

¶66

SRS1 W.P.No.38834 of 2022

¶67

contentions as per the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the^3rd respondent.

¶68

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.9 and 10 would contend that petitioners are not aggrieved persons and hence, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. He would also contend that against the entries made in Section 43 register, the aggrieved person has to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 of the Act.

¶69

As seen from the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, the^3rd respondent recognized respondent Nos.7 to 11 as hereditary archakas. Father of respondent Nos.7 to 11 rendered archakatvam services in the^6U1 respondent temple and in fact, his name was shown along with the other two persons as per the approved register under Section 38 of the Act 2 of 1927 vide C.No.10383 dated 05.10.1950. Respondent Nos.7 to 11 made application and the^3rd respondent recognized them as hereditary archakas.

¶70

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3rd respondent did not record any finding as to the qualifications of the petitioners falls to ground since there is L

¶71

Page 6 of 7

¶72

SRSJ W.P.No.38834 of 2022

¶73

no such requirement under the Act. Since the names of respondent Nos.7 to 11 were mentioned in Section 43 Register, the petitioners got an alternative remedy either to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 of the Act or by filing revision under Section 92 of the Act. Without availing the efficacious alternative remedy, petitioners approached this court and filed writ petition. Learned counsel would contend that petitioners will avail the alternative remedy.

¶74

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to avail alternative remedy either approaching the Endowments Tribunal or filing revision before the competent authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions

¶76

shall stand closed.

¶77

//TRUE COPY//

¶78

Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Cj2

¶79

SECTION OFFICER

¶80