Dismissed

K.Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024WP/22775/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Devotee challenged appointment of respondent No.5 as Archaka-manager of Sri Ekadasa Mukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple and alleged failure to protect endowment lands. Government instructions showed properties were leased by public auction under departmental supervision per fourth proviso to Section 15(2). Finding no merit, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22775 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Satyanarayana, S/o Gangaraju, Aged about 53 yrs, Occ; Agriculturist, R/o Teeparru Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-4.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Commissioner, Endowment Department, Hyderabad-4.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner (Admin), Endowment Department, Government ofA.P, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Asst. Commissioner, Endowment Department Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶16

Akondi Satyanarayana, S/o. Suryanarayana, Age 50 years, Occ; Service, R/o. Teeparru Village, West Godavari District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in

¶19

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶20

- be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more^{particularlyone} in the riatufe of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in failing to safeguard the endowment properties belonging to Sri Ekadasa Mukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple and appointing Respondent No. 5 as Archaka of the temple as arbitrary, illegal and consequently^setasidehis appointment as Archaka and appoint a Manager as was^doneearlier.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 29440 OF 2015)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of Respondent No. 3 D.Dis. No. G2/4428/2010 dated 03-08-2010.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C M R VELU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI T.V.S. PRABHAKARA^RAO

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

APHC010434552015

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

[3333]

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 22775/2015

Between:

K.satyanarayana,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶41

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶43

1.C M R VELU

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶46

2.T V S PRABHAKARA RAO

¶47

The Court made the following:

¶48

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in failing to safeguard the endowment properties belonging to Sri Ekadasa Mukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Teeparru village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District and appointing the 5*^ respondent as Archaka of the temple as arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside his appointment as Archaka and appoint a Manager as was done earlier.

¶51

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner^isthedevotee and worshipper of Sri Ekadasa Mukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, which has got several acres of land properties gifted by the devotees to the temple and its attached properties are endowment properties. These properties are in the hands of respondent, who has been misusing the properties and sold some of the properties. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner^has earlier filed Writ Petition No.23452 of 2005 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court, directing the 1^* respondent to conclude the enquiry against the 5 th respondent initiated in 1997 within four (04) weeks, But, instead of conducting enquiry as directed by this Court, the 5*^ respondent was appointed as Archaka and thereafter appointed in the place of Manager vide respondent letter dated 15.07.2008.

¶52

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the^action of the official respondents in continuing the 5‘^ respondent as Archaka of the temple by virtue of the orders of the 3^'^ respondent and the action of the respondents in

¶53

¶54

failing to safeguard to endowment properties belonging to Sri Ekadasamukha Anjaneyaswamy Temple.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶56

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government pleader for Endowments produced a copy of the written instructions of the 4*^ respondent, wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the proceedings of the 2"'^ respondent-commissioner, Endowment dated 03.08.2010, the 3' respondent-Deputy Commissioner, issued proceedings vide D.Dis.No.BI/4516/2010, dated 18.08.2010 withdrawing the Manager of the temple and entrusted its management to the 5*^ respondent herein and directed the Inspector to keep on watch of management of the temple by Archaka. Thus, the management of subject temple has been looked after by the 5'' respondent ever since 18.08.2010. The 5'^ respondent has leased out agriculture land of the temple i.e., Ac.3.0 cents by way of public auction held on 26.10.2016 and one A.Hari Babu became highest bidder at Rs.60,500/per annum for entire extent of Ac.3.30 cents for a period of three year I.e. upto 2019. Thereafter, the said tenant has been continuing possession and enjoyment of the said land without extension of lease. 6. In respect of land in Ac.2.14 cents one M.Krishna was tenant by way of public auction as on the date of handover management of the temple to 5'^ respondent i.e., by 18.08.2010. On completion of three years period Mr.M.Krishna has continued possession and enjoyment of the said land.

¶57

¶58

After death of M.Krishna, his brother by name Venkatrao has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land belonging to the temple on payment of lease amount of Rs.20,000/- per annum to the temple. Ever since 18.08.2010, the temple is under management of the S"" respondent and they have not received any complaints against the 5*'" respondent^and the fact remains that as per the orders of Commissioner of Endowments, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada has handed over management of the subject temple to the 5'^ respondent Archaka of the temple as per fourth proviso of Section 15(2) of the Act and after withdrawing the Manager from the temple to avoid his salary burden on the temple as^the income of the subject temple is below Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum, Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶59

In view of the above instructions, it is clear that the properties of the Sri Ekadasa Mukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Teeparru village are being safeguarded by the Endowment Department by duly leasing out the properties in favour of the third parties, under the management of the 5 th respondent. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the Writ Petition.

¶60

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶61

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri C M R Velu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri TVS Prabhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DAT'ED:04/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.22775of 2015

m
^ 2 8 DEC 2P2ff
^ . Current Section . ^

¶75

DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

K.Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sunil Kumar Vs State of Ap

Rahul Shivashankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Ratha Rao Vs State of Ap

M. Krishnamraju, Y.S.R.Kadapa Dist Vs Prl Secy, Energy Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

The Chief Engineer (Projects) Srisailam Project, Vs a. Jayanna

Smt.M.Ch.Lalitha Kumari, W/o Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh