Yenumala Anjaneynlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

YENUMALA ANJANEYNLU,, S/O. CHENCHAIAH @ PEDDA CHENCHAIAH, AGE 67 YEARS, OCC HEREDITARY ARCHAKA IN (SRI GANGADEVI PERANTALLU AMMAVARI TEMPLE, ORVAKALLU) R/O H.NO. 1-29/1, CHIGURUPADU VILLAGE, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPEEIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

SRI GANGADEVI PERANTALLU AMMAVARI TEMPLE, ORVAKALLU VILLAGE, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALNADU, PALNADU DISTRICT REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶17

YENUMALA VENKATESWARLU, S/O GURAVAIAH, AGE 72 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O CHIGURUPADU VILLAGE, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR, PALNADU DISTRICT-522409

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

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 issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.A6/217/2023-1 dated 09.11.2023 in recognizing the 5th respondent as hereditary archaka of the 4^th respondent temple as bad, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 operation of proceedings of the 3rd respondent in A6/217/2023-1 dated 09.11.2023 and pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶24

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 vacate the interim orders dated 10-01-2024 in WP.N0.724 of 2024,, and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

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 vacate the interim Order passed in WP No.724 of 2024, dated 10.01.2024 and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.D V SASIDHAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶31

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

¶32

3.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶33

3

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 724/2024

¶36

The Court made the following Order:

¶37

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by the Respondent No.3 in Rc.No.A6/217/2023-1, dated 07.11.2023 in recognizing the Respondent No.5 as the hereditary archaka of the Respondent No.4 Temple.

¶38

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

¶39

The petitioner claims to be a hereditary archaka of the Respondent No.4 Temple rendering archaka services. It is stated that the father of the petitioner by name Enumula Chenchaiah @ Pedda Chenchaiah and another person by name Enumala Gopaiah used to render archakatvam services in the Respondent No.4 Temple. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner along with one Enumala Sambaiah i.e., the son of Enumala Gopaiah were rendering archakatvam services in the Respondent No.4 Temple. While so, the dispute arose from Enumala Sambaiah and the Respondent No.5 regarding recognition as hereditary archaka and share in archakatvam. In that context, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.13/95 before the Regional Joint Commissioner and after hearing the respondent authorities, the orders was passed on 19.02.1997 declaring the petitioner as half share holder of the archakatvam. While so, the Respondent No.5 submitted a representation on 30.01.2023 claiming for declaration to recognize him as hereditary archaka, as their family was rendering archaka services and to enter their names in the

¶40

4

¶41

property register maintained under Section 43 of the Act. Consequent thereto, the Respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order, after verifying the property register, held that the father of the Respondent No.5 has worked as archaka in the Respondent No.4 Temple and consequently passed the impugned order recognizing the Respondent No.5 as hereditary archaka. Further, the District Endowments Officer, Palnadu and the Executing Officer of the subject Temple were directed to take further action to include the name of the Respondent No.5 in the property register of the Temple under Section 43(10) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶42

Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department has passed the impugned order without any notice to the petitioner and that the Deputy Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to pass the order in view of the Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Religious Hereditary Archakas and Emolument Act, 2019.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner, however they contend that there is delegation of power in favour of the Deputy Commissioner and as such, the impugned order is falter for want of due process.

¶44

5

¶45

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments also submits that due notice shall be issued to the petitioner, and an appropriate decision shall be taken by the respondent authorities in accordance with law.

¶46

Heard the respective counsels. There is no dispute to the fact that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to Respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. The Respondent No.3 shall proceed further only after issuing notice to the petitioner and adjudicating the issue, taking into account the submissions made by the petitioner, and strictly following the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Religious Hereditary Archakas and Emoluments Act, 2019. As regards the contention of the petitioner regarding the authority of the Respondent No.3 to proceed with the enquiry, the said issue is left open for consideration by the Respondent No.3. Till the completion of the said exercise, Status-Quo as on date shall be maintained.

¶47