Disposed

Kothapalli Saibaba, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2015WP/18547/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner claiming membership of a temple's founder family. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the long-pending application for declaration as a member of the founder family within four weeks, ensuring an opportunity of hearing, before the constitution of the Trust Board to avoid prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner to pass final orders on O.A.No.124 of 2009 regarding the petitioner's application for declaration as a member of the founder family within four weeks, prior to the con

Kothapalli Saibaba, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18547 OF 2015

¶2

Date: 06.07.2015

¶3

Between :

¶4

Kothapalli Saibaba, S/o.late Kothapalli Prabhakar Goud, Aged about 33 years, r/o. D.No.7-1-311, Renuka Nagar, B.K.Guda, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

and The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.18547 OF 2015

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Petitioner claims to be the member of the founder family of Yellamma and Pochamma in Balkampet Village. According to the petitioner, his great great grand father Kothapalli Lakshmaiah founded two idols of Goddess, namely, Yellamma and Pochamma in the said village and developed the temple at his own costs during the regime of Late Raja Dharm Karam. In accordance with provision contained in Section 6 (a) of Endowments Act, 1987, temple is declared as Endowment temple. According to the petitioner, several ancestors of the petitioner have been declared as members of the founder family of the subject temple. After demise of K.Babaiah, his son namely, K.Prabhakar Goud succeeded him. After the death of the person who was earlier declared as founder family and by obtaining consent from other family members, petitioner has applied for issuance of declaration that he is the member of founder family. In response to the said application filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, registered the said application as O.A.No.124 of 2009 and issued notice dated 10.12.2009 fixing the date of consideration of the matter as 20.02.2010.

¶13

2. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, no further steps were taken and so far no declaration is given to the petitioner as sought. Learned senior counsel submits that successively all the family members of Kothapalli Laxmaiah were declared as members of the founder family and it is a formality insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Learned senior counsel further submits that there was no objection from the family members of the petitioner to declare him as member of founder family of the subject temple. He further submits that there was inordinate delay in processing the application filed by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have kept in mind that, according to the senior counsel, there is a possibility of appointment of Board of Trustees and unless his application is

¶14

decided before the steps are being taken for appointment of Board Trustees, grave prejudice would be caused to petitioner.

¶15

3. Having regard to the submission of learned senior counsel, since the application submitted by the petitioner for declaring him as member of founder family is pending consideration since 2009, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad (3^rd respondent) to pass final orders in O.A.No.124 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner be put on notice and be given opportunity of hearing to present his case. The Deputy Commissioner shall keep in mind that such order should be passed before the constitution of Trust Board.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶18

Date: 06.07.2015 kkm

¶19

Oval: 

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶21

Writ Petition No.18547 of 2015

¶22

Date: 06.07.2015

¶23

kkm

Kothapalli Saibaba, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothapalli Saibaba, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mandapelli Malleshwari Vs State of Telangana

Shiva Narayana Patrudu, Vs Sri. J.C.Sharma, IAS

T.JithendraPrasad, S/o Sathyanarayana Swamy, Vs The State of Telangana, rep by its

Perla SambaMurthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mawaram Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Srinivasa Constructions, Vs The State of Telangana.