Sri Kasi Visveswara Annapurna Devasthanam. Vs Appana Venkata Satya Sai Babu

APPANA VENKATA SATYA SAI BABU, S/O LATE VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS. BUSINESS R/O D.NO.39-16-11, GIRI SAI TOWERS, S4, RUKMINI KRISHNA RICE MILL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT

¶14

APPANA MAHA SADHA SIVA SRUYANARAYANA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED- 79 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.11-62-28, UPSTAIRS, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in O.A.No.481 of 2011 by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati, Peddakakani and direct that the respondents are not entitled to be recognised as founder family members of Sri Kasi Visveswara Annapurna Devasthanam and that the respondents to forthwith deliver all temple records, books of

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

accounts, inventories, registers and properties to the Executive Officer and to comply with statutory obligations and Pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 stay all further proceedings in O.A.No.481/2011 dated:30-09-2021 passed by A.P Endowment Tribunal, Amaravathi, Pedakakani Guntur, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

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

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.KARTHIK SHAH

¶25

2.GOPU VENKATA RAMANUJA KRISHNA ARYA

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

Heard Sri K.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for the petitioner and Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

The above Civil Revision Petition was filed under Section 91 of the A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short „Act‟), assailing the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in O.A.No.481 of 2011 on the file of the learned A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Peddakakani.

¶29

The 1^st respondent herein filed O.A.No.481 of 2011 under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act to recognise him as a member of the founder family of the subject temple Sri Kasi Visweswara Annapurna Devasthanam, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. By order dated 30.09.2021, the said O.A. was allowed and the 1^st respondent was declared and recognised as a member of the founder

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

family of Sri Kasi Visweswara Annapurna Devasthanam, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. Against the said order, the above revision was filed.

¶32

Against an order passed under Section 87 of the Act, an appeal would lie under Section 88 of the Act.

¶33

Section 88 of the Act reads as follows:-

¶34

“ 88. Right of appeal against the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under section 87 – Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under section 87 and section 119 may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of the decision prefer an appeal to the High Court.”

¶35

Section 88 of the Act was incorporated by Act 33 of 2007 with effect from 03.01.2008. Since the O.A. was instituted in the year 2011, Section 88 squarely applies, and the statutory remedy against an order passed under Section 87 of the Act is an appeal to the High Court.

¶36

The scope and applicability of Section 88 of the Act fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the composite High Court in A.S.No.821 of 2008 and batch on a reference made by a learned Single Judge. The questions at Serial Nos.1, 4 and 5, referred by the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench, are as follows:

¶37

“1. Whether an Appeal would lie at all to the High Court as against the order made by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in O.A. in the light of the clear language of Section 88 of the Act?

¶38

Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances, such aggrieved parties may have the remedy under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be?

¶39

In the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that an Appeal be maintainable under Section 88 of the Act, whether the same to be

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

numbered as a regular Appeal (A.S.) or a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M.A.)?”

¶42

While answering the said reference, the Division Bench held as follows:

¶43

So far as the other questions referred at serial No.1, 4 and 5 are concerned, the same can be narrowed down to the query as to whether an Appeal would lie to the District Court as against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, who was discharging the functions during such interregnum period as an Endowments Tribunal as provided for under the aforesaid provision. This question has already come up for consideration before one of us (BPR,J) in the decision reported in EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GROUP TEMPLES v. SRI SAKHIYA MATT, SRIKAKULAM^**_[_**1] , and it was held as follows:

¶44

“A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 – Section 87(1)(a) to (h) – Application under – Dismissal of, filing of appeal against, before District Court, maintainability of – Against all orders passed under sub-clauses (a) to (h) under Section 87(a), appeal would lie only to High court, irrespective of fact that the same is presided over by Tribunal or Deputy Commissioner – Even though Deputy Commissioner initially passed order, fact remains that Deputy Commissioner only exercising all such powers in lieu of powers conferred on Endowments Tribunal as contemplated under Section 87 of Act – A right of appeal necessarily has to be provided by a statute and cannot be implied under any circumstances – In the circumstances, appeal, as filed and disposed of before District Court, held, not maintainable and necessarily, respondent has to approach High court alone – Even under Section 91, High court conferred with powers of revision only against orders, where no appeal provided, but not otherwise – CRP allowed – Impugned order set aside, as being without jurisdiction – District Court directed to return original papers of appeal to respondent therein to resubmit the same.”

¶45

In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench and the provisions of Section 88 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of the Act is not

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

maintainable. Having held that the revision petition itself is not maintainable, this Court is not inclined to examine the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Endowments Tribunal. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶48