Dismissed¶69

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Aug 2025WP/13997/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

hereditary archaka; founder family member; Section 43 register; Section 144 and its proviso, A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987; abolition of shares in kanukas/offerings; auction of licence to collect coconut halves and votive offerings; Sri Lakshmi Ganapthi Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Bikkavolu, East Godavari; Commissioner of Endowments proceedings dated 13.05.2025; Endowments Tribunal Pedakakani O.A. No.90/2012 and I.A.Nos.285/2012, 1283/2013; W.P.No.14938 of 2015; Itikala Nageswaraiah 2021 SCC Online AP 2789 distinguished; mandamus refused; writ dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications closed as a sequel. ¶69

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications closed as a sequel.

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings dated 13.05.2025 of the 2nd respondent Commissioner — rejecting the petitioners' application for founder-family/hereditary-archaka status and directing auction of the licence for collection of coconut halves and votive offerings — are illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Reliance on the Tribunal's interim order dated 01.03.2012 in I.A.No.285 of 2012 in O.A.No.90 of 2012 to resist the auction does not merit consideration, as it culminated in the final order dated 22.07.2013 disposing of I.A.Nos.1283 of 2013 and 285 of 2012 in O.A.No.90 of 2012 with directions.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

The proviso to Section 144 of the Act is compensatory in nature and applies only where the claimant had been recognised as a hereditary archaka with a right to share in the offerings as on the date the Act came into force; since no such recognition existed in favour of the petitioners' father as of that date, the proviso to Section 144 does not apply to the petitioners.

¶63

Key takeaways

The decision in Itikala Nageswaraiah (2021 SCC Online AP 2789) relied on by the petitioners does not apply: it arose from temple land allotted to archakas in lieu of their services under a 1973 compromise with the Endowments Department, whose leasehold rights were proposed for public auction, and the observation there was confined to such leasehold rights of land given as remuneration.ratio¶64
The petitioners' claim that, until a scheme is formulated under Section 144 of the Act, they are entitled to have the offerings made to the deity for their exclusive benefit is misconceived and unsustainable.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Single Bench, Kiranmayee Mandava, J.), W.P. No.13997 of 2025, decided 12.08.2025: Two brothers claiming that their grandfather and father rendered archakatvam at Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Bikkavolu, challenged the Commissioner of Endowments' proceedings in Rc.No.B3/COE-12024(51)/89/2023 dated 13.05.2025 rejecting their application for declaration as member of the founder family/hereditary archaka and directing auction of the licence for collection of coconut halves and other votive offerings. Held: (i) shares in kanukas and offerings stood abolished on commencement of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987; the proviso to Sec.144 operates only as compensation for persons recognised as hereditary archakas as on the date the Act came into force, and no such recognition existed for the petitioners' father; (ii) Itikala Nageswaraiah v. State of A.P., 2021 SCC Online AP 2789, is distinguishable, being confined to temple land allotted to archakas in lieu of services under a 1973 compromise; (iii) reliance on the Tribunal's interim order dated 01.03.2012 in I.A.No.285 of 2012 fails, as it merged in the final orders dated 22.07.2013 in O.A.No.90 of 2012; (iv) the claim to the offerings until framing of a scheme under Sec.144 is misconceived. Writ petition dismissed; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010278072025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3458]

¶6

TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 13997/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

GOLLAPALLI CHALAPATHI SARMA, S/O. VENKATARAMANA, AGED 42, R/O. D.NO. 6-51/1, GANAPATHI TEMPLE, BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE, EAST GODAVARI.

¶12

GOLLAPALLI SANTOSH,, S/O. VENKATARAMANA, AGED 38, R/O. D.NO. 6-51/1, GANAPATHI TEMPLE, BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE, EAST GODAVARI.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF AP, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, AP SECREARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, OPP S. GRAND RESTAURANT, GOLLAPUDI VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶17

THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶20

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI LAKSHMI GANAPTHI SWAMY VARI DEVASTANAM, BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE, BIKKAVOLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶22

SRI LAKSHMI GANAPTHI SWAMY VARI DEVASTANAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE, BIKKAVOLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶23

SRI A S B L RAMALINGAM, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI LAKSHMI GANAPTHI SWAMY VARI DEVASTANAM BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE, BIKKAVOLU MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly the one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner vide Rc. No.B3/COE-12024(51)/89/2023, dated 13.05.2025 directing the 6th respondent Executive officer to entrust the license rights for collection of Coconut and other votive offerings of the 7th respondent Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Temple and consequential auction notification dated 18.05.2025 issued by the respondent while O.A.No. 90 of 2012 on the file of the Honble A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur is pending as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction, opposed to the principles of natural justice and violative of the objects and provisions of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act and Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the proceedings in Rc.No.B3/COE12024(51)/89/2023, dated 13.05.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner and also to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the auction notification dated 18.05.2025 issued by the 6th respondent pending disposal of the O.A.No. 90 of 2012 on the file of the Honble A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the auction notification dated 18.05.2025 issued by 6th the respondent pending disposal

¶28

¶29

of the O.A.No. 90 of 2012 on the file of the Honble A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur and to pass

¶30

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶31

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 Pleased to grant stay of operation of proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner vide Rc.No.B3/COE-12024(51)78 9/2023, dated 13.05.2025 and to pass

¶32

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶33

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 pleased to vadate the interim order granted in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the WP.NO.13997 of 2025, dated 29.05.2025 and order dismiss the main writ petition as devoid of merits and pass

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶35

1.MUTYALA SOBHANADRI NAIDU

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region.

¶38

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER :-

¶41

Heard Sri Mutyala Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, appearing for the respondents.

¶42

The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, rejecting the application made by the petitioners to declare the 1^st petitioner as a member of the founder family and the 2^nd petitioner as a

¶43

¶44

member of hereditary archaka family. Vide the same impugned order, the 2^nd respondent has directed the 6^th respondent to conduct an auction for the granting of a license for the collection of coconut halves and the offerings to the deity.

¶45

It is contended that the petitioners’ grandfather, during his lifetime, was performing archakatvam at the subject temple. After his demise, the petitioners’ father continued to render his services as an Archaka. In lieu of the services rendered to the temple, the petitioner’s grandfather and father were collecting coconut halves and other offerings to the deity. Apart from the said offerings, the petitioners were never paid any wages. The petitioner’s father and grandfather were never paid any wages for rendering archakatvam. In recognition of their services, their names were recorded in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner’s father filed O.A. No. 90 of 2012 to declare him a Founder Member. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs. In the said O.A., the Endowments Tribunal passed an order to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from 01.03.2012 towards expenditure, including the salaries of two archakas of Rs.12,000/-.

¶46

It is contended that when the 7^th respondent, Temple, proposed to conduct an auction for the issuance of a license to collect coconut halves

¶47

¶48

and other offerings to the deity, the petitioner's father approached this Court and filed W.P.No.14938 of 2015 and obtained an interim order dated 21.05.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has objected to such an attempt made by the Temple to conduct auctions by applying to the Tribunal and Writ Petition(s) before this Court, W.P.Nos.2633 of 2025, 2137 of 2024 and 2584 of 2023 and the said Writ Petitions were disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner. Until the representations are disposed of, the respondents were directed not to conduct any further auction. In pursuance thereof, the order impugned in the Writ Petition has been passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner's grandfather and father have rendered archakathvam in the subject Temple and the petitioners are entitled to be recognized as hereditary archaka and member of founder family. It is further contended that unless a scheme under Section 144 of the Act is formulated, the Executive Officer of the Temple has no jurisdiction to conduct an auction of the rights for the collection of coconut halves and other offerings made to the deity. In the said connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Itikala Nageswaraiah and another Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Prinicipal Secretary and others¹ , it is observed as under:

¶49

“20. All the above facts, would lead to the conclusion that the leasehold rights of the land belonging to the temple, which were earlier given as remuneration, to Archakas, for services

¶50

1 2021 SCC Online AP 2789

¶51

¶52

rendered, cannot be auctioned unless and until pay scales are fixed for such Archakas and salaries are paid in accordance with that scale.

¶53

23. In the present case, it is the contention of the respondents that the members of the two branches of the Archaka families are being paid salaries. However, there is no mention as to whether grades of pay and other service conditions for these Archakas have been fixed or not. In fact, it appears that except paying an ad hoc salary, the respondent authorities have not framed any scheme fixing the scales of pay/salaries to the Archakas. Such payment of ad hoc salaries cannot be treated as framing of a scheme, as required under the above proceedings.”

¶54

The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not apply to the present case, in as much as the petitioner is not a permanent archaka. He is working on payment of consolidated wages and his claim for hereditary archaka is pending before the Tribunal. It is further stated that the tribunal passed order in I.A.No.285 of 2012 and I.A.No.1283 of 2013 in O.A.90 of 2012, on the application made by the petitioner’s father to recognize him as hereditary archaka. The Tribunal passed the following order:

¶55

"The reasonable expenditure including for salaries of two Archakas together of Rs.12,000/- fixed comes to Rs.25,000/per month payable w.e.f 01.03.2012 to pay all arrears from the amount in deposit of hundi collections as ordered in Ι.Α.No.285/2012 and to pay every month herein after from hundi collections by the Assistant Commissioner through Inspector and obtain receipts, Accordingly these petitions Ι.Α.Νο.1283/2013 and I.A.No.285/2012 are disposed off".

¶56

¶57

Thus argues that the petitioner has no right to make a claim for share in the offerings made to the deity as the same would belong to the temple. The petitioner has been paid consolidated monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶58

It is further argued that as per register maintained under Sec.43 of the Act, there are no hereditary archakas in respect of the subject temple and if any grievance against the impugned order, the petitioners have to approach the Endowments Tribunal.

¶59

Considered the submissions.

¶60

The claim of the petitioners is that a duty is cast upon the Commissioner of Endowments under the proviso to Sec.144 of the Act to formulate a scheme stipulating the conditions of service and payment of emoluments to Archakas, office holders etc,. Till formulating such a scheme, the petitioner should be allowed to collect the revenues from the sale of offerings to the deity.

¶61

The provisions of Sec.144 of the Act provides that not withstanding any contained in any judgment, decree, or order of any Court, or Tribunal, to any custom or usage, etc., share or shares in kanukas offered either in kind or in cash, offerings made in the premises of the temple or at such places as may be specified by the trustee and such other kinds of offerings etc., which have been in existence as on the date of coming into force of the Act shall stand abolished with effect from the date of

¶62

¶63

commencement of the Act, 1987. In the said connection, a duty has been cast upon the Commissioner to formulate a scheme in case of such institutions, stipulating the conditions of service of the archakas. Therefore, unless the case of the petitioners falls under Section 144 of the Act, and unless the petitioner's had a recognized right, to have a share in the offerings, and the same had expired soon after the coming into force of Sec.144 of the Act, framing of a scheme under the proviso to the said Section would not arise. Proviso to Sec.144 of the Act is in the nature of granting compensation for losing the right to receive the offerings in the temple. Further, as per Sec.144 of the Act, the petitioners should have been recognized as hereditary archakas, as of the date, the provisions of Sec.144 of the Act have come into force. In the present case, no such recognition was in existence in favour of the petitioner’s father, as of the date of coming into force of the Act. Unless the said right is established, the proviso to Sec.144 of the Act would not apply.

¶64

The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not apply to the facts of the case. In the said case, the land belonging to the temple was allotted to the archakas in lieu of their services, as per compromise arrived at with the Endowments Department in 1973. However, the land thus allotted to the archakas was proposed for conducting public auction of the lease hold rights. In the said context, this Court has observed that lease hold rights of the lands belonging to the temple which

¶65

¶66

were earlier given as remuneration cannot be taken away, unless pay scales are fixed and salaries are paid for such archakas.

¶67

Therefore the claim of the petitioners that till such time, the scheme is formulated under Sec.144 of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to have the offerings to the deity for their exclusive benefit, is misconceived and the same is unsustainable.

¶68

The learned counsel for the petitioners’ further reliance on the interim order of the Tribunal dated 01.03.2012, in I.A.No.285 of 2012 in O.A. No.90 of 2012 and claiming that in the light of the same, the respondents cannot conduct auction for grant of license for collection of coconut halves, would not merit consideration. Having regard to the fact that the same has culminated into a final order, disposing of the I.A.No(s).1283 of 2013 & 285 of 2012 in O.A.No.90 of 2012 dated 22.07.2013 with directions, referred supra (Para 5).

¶69