Kondakavuri Sivarama Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Mar 2025WP/2579/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hereditary archaka recognition dispute — Sri Thrikoteswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Kotappakonda, Narasaraopeta Mandal, Palnadu District; representation dated 09.11.2023; rejection vide proceedings dated 07.05.2024; Section 43, Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987; G.O. No.439 dated 21.10.2019; Tribunal remedy under the Act; writ petition disposed of, no order as to costs; Justice Kiranmayee Mandava; 25.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

The relief sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition does not merit consideration; since the petitioner's representation has already been disposed of, he is at liberty to avail the remedies available under law if aggrieved by the said order. ¶¶31

Kondakavuri Sivarama Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

[3458]

APHC010043022024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2579/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kondakavuri Sivarama Krishna

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.D V SASIDHAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶19

2.MEKAPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENTS PALNADU PRAKASAM AND SPSR NELLORE

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER :-

¶22

Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Pathuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondents.

¶23

Challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the

¶24

application/representation made by the petitioner on 09.11.2023, seeking a

¶25

¶26

declaration that the petitioner is the Hereditary Archaka of Sri Thrikoteswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Kotappakonda, Narasaraopeta Mandal, Palnadu District, the instant Writ Petition has been filed.

¶27

It is contended by the petitioner that his grandfather was the hereditary archaka in the subject temple,after the demise of his grandfather, the petitioner’s father was appointed as hereditary archaka. The name of the petitioner’s father was also entered in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) where under, it is mentioned about the hereditary archakatvam of the Kondakavuri’s surname, which is claimed to be the petitioner’s surname. The petitioner further contends that as per GO. No.439 dated 21.10.2019, which had restored the hereditary archakatvam the petitioner has made several representations to the concerned authorities seeking his recognition as the hereditary archaka of the subject temple.

¶28

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that as per the report of his predecessor dated 30.12.2022, the petitioner’s family’s name is not reflected as a hereditary archaka family in the approved property registers of the subject temple right from 1947, and the petitioner’s family was not recognized as hereditary archakas. It is further stated that, based on the report of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner’s request was rejected vide proceedings dated 07.05.2024. It is further stated that if the petitioner has any

¶29

¶30

grievance in this regard, he should approach the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of ‘the Act’.

¶31

In view of the submissions made, this Court is of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition does not merit consideration. Since the representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he is at liberty to avail the remedies available under law.

¶32