Dismissed

Devarla Erranna, v. The Principle Secretary

Telangana HC8 Aug 2018WP/22597/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discussed petition against directing petitioners to hand over a deity. Held that disputed questions of fact require civil court trial. Disposed writ leaving matter to civil court, maintaining interim order preserving petitioners' possession pending civil judgment.

What did the court decide?

Interim order maintaining petitioners' possession continued pending final disposal of the pending civil suit.

Devarla Erranna, Vs The Principle… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI WRIT PETITION No.22597 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners assailing the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in directing them to hand over the deity, namely ‘Rajula Devudu’ from ‘Mudu Devulla Temple’ of Malayanur Village to the respondents 5 to 8, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. In the writ petition, a further consequential direction is also sought against the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the affairs of the temple of the petitioners, namely ‘Mudu Devulla Temple’ of Malayanur Village.

¶4

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri A.Bhaskara Chari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; of the learned Government Pleader for Home (A.P.), appearing for the respondents 1 to 4; and of Ms. M.Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8. I have perused the material record including the pleadings of the parties.

¶5

3. The case of the petitioners is this: ‘The petitioners are managing the ‘Mudu Devulla Temple’ in Malayanur Village, which according to them is a private ancient temple being worshiped by 80 families of Boya caste people in the village. In the temple complex, there are three shrines, in which three deities, namely Sri Mallaiah Devudu, Sri Rajula Devudu and Sri Obula Devudu, are being worshiped since 300 years. Recently that old temple was pulled down and a new temple with shrines was constructed. There are three Archakas/priests for worshipping and performing

¶6

2 MSRM, J

¶7

W.P.No.22597 of 2017

¶8

rituals on every Monday and Saturday evenings in the said temple complex. During festive seasons, occasionally the three deities will be taken to a neighbouring village temple i.e., the temple in Vaddepalem Village and the three deities would be kept there for one night and would be worshiped and would be brought back to the ‘Mudu Devulla’ temple in Malayanur Village. While so, when the villagers of Vaddepalem Village, particularly the respondents 5 to 8, insisted that one deity among the three deities namely ‘Rajula Devudu’ deity shall be retained in the temple at Vaddepalem Village, the petitioners approached the DIG of Police and submitted a representation, dated 29.06.2017. He made an endorsement to the Officer concerned to conduct an enquiry in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and resolve the dispute and communicate the compliance thereof to him. However, no such meeting was held; nonetheless, the police colluded with the unofficial respondents 5 to 8 and tried to interfere with the possession of the said deity by the petitioners and directed them to hand over the deity to the respondents 5 to 8. Hence, questioning the said action as illegal and arbitrary, they approached this Court

¶9

and filed this writ petition.’

¶10

4. Per contra, the case of the non official respondents 5 to 8 is this: ‘The deity ‘Rajula Devudu’ is the presiding deity of a temple in Vaddepalem Village. The convention and custom of both the villages since last 100 years is that the deity in the temple of Vaddepalem Village, who is the brother deity of the two deities in Malayanur Village, will be taken to the Malayanur Village on every important occasion and that after performance of pooja and rituals, the said deity of the temple of Vaddepalem Village will be

¶11

3 MSRM, J

¶12

W.P.No.22597 of 2017

¶13

taken return to the said village temple and that on one occasion, when the deity of Vaddepalem Village is taken to the Malayanur Village for performance of pooja and rituals, the petitioners refused and failed to return back the deity to the temple of Vaddepalem Village and that the petitioners in the facts and circumstances stated are not entitled to retain the possession of the deity in the ‘Mudu Devulla Temple’ of their village.’

¶14

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, dated 18.07.2017, a copy of which is placed on record, would submit as follows: ‘A meeting was convened, on 04.07.2017, as per the instructions of the DSP, Kalyandurg. And, at that time, a representation, dated 29.06.2017, which was made before the DIG, Ananthapuram, was considered. Apart from the respondents 5 to 8 herein, one D.Raj Kumar also promised before the village elders to return the deity of ‘Rajula Devudu’ to the temple of Vaddepalem Village. Thereafter, without returning the deity, the petitioners herein filed the present writ petition. The SDPO, Kalyandurgam, vide Lr.No.409/Genl/SDPA-KLG/207, dated 04.07.2017, addressed to the RDO, Kalyandurg, requested to conduct a meeting with the concerned villagers to solve the said sensitive issue. Accordingly, a meeting was conducted, on 14.07.2017, with the villagers of both the villages including the petitioners 1 & 3 herein, the respondents 5 to 8 herein and others. During the enquiry at the said meeting, it came to light that ‘Rajula Devudu’ deity is said to have been established in the temple of Vaddepalem Village for about 100 years back and that the said ‘Rajula Devudu’ deity was being brought to ‘Mudu Devulla Temple’ at Malayanur Village on festive occasions and that thereafter, the

¶15

4 MSRM, J

¶16

W.P.No.22597 of 2017

¶17

said deity was being taken back by a procession to the temple at Vaddepalem Village and that ‘Rajula Devudu’ deity is to be worshiped in the temple at Vaddepalem Village and that in view of the recent re-construction of ‘Mudu Devulla Temple’ at Malayanur Village, ‘Rajula Devudu’ deity was brought to the temple at Malayanur Village to conduct pooja of the said Deity along with the other two deities, but, later the petitioners, instead of allowing to take back the ‘Rajula Devudu’ Deity to Vaddepalem Village, wrongly retained the said deity at Mudu Devulla Temple at Malayanur Village.

¶18

6. It is apt to note that, on 10.07.2017, this Court granted the following interim order:

¶19

“Meanwhile, the respondents shall not interfere with

¶20

functioning of the Temple and shifting of the Deity.”

¶21

7. From the narration of the above facts, it is discernible that a complex question of fact as to who among the two rival contestants from the two villages is entitled to have possession of and worship the subject Deity is in issue. The petitioners are refusing to deliver possession of the Deity, which the non-official respondents are seeking possession of. The said complex issue involves examination of age old customs & practices being canvassed by both the sides and investigation of factual aspects.

¶22

8. Admittedly, the petitioners, after the institution of the writ petition, filed O.S.No.136 of 2017, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg, for declaration and other reliefs and that in that suit an interlocutory application in I.A.No.645 of 2017 is also filed. However, in view of the pendency of this writ petition

¶23

5 MSRM, J

¶24

W.P.No.22597 of 2017

¶25

and in view of the interim order granted by this Court, no interim order is granted in the said suit.

¶26

9. From the above submissions and the subsequent event, it is clear that the civil Court, which can grant a common law remedy after examining the complex facts, is seized of the matter and is now having seisin over the matter. This Court, therefore, need not resolve the dispute by resorting to adjudication of the complex issue of fact, as a question of this nature requires detailed examination and is to be determined by the civil Court in an appropriate proceeding, after full-fledged trial. The same principle extends to matters involving mixed questions of fact and law. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be converted into a Suit to resolve factual controversies. And, in general, disputed question of fact is not investigated into in a writ petition of this nature, more particularly, when an alternative efficacious remedy is already being pursued before a jurisdictional civil Court. The parties can work out the remedies in the suit pending before the Civil Court. On the above analysis of facts and settled legal position, this Court finds that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

¶27

10. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving the matter to be decided comprehensively by the civil Court before which the civil suit is pending. However, since ‘Rajula Devudu’ Deity is admittedly in possession of the petitioners and there is an interim order in their favour till date, the interim order shall continue and the petitioners’ possession over the said Deity shall not be interfered with by the respondents until an appropriate

¶28

6 MSRM, J

¶29

W.P.No.22597 of 2017

¶30

order on merits is passed by the civil Court either in an appropriate interlocutory application filed in the said suit or until the final disposal of the civil suit, as the case may be. It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; and, hence, the Civil Court, which is having seisin over the matter, shall deal with the matter on merits, however, in strict accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶31

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

____________________________________ JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI Date: 8^th August, 2018 Note: Issue CC by 21.08.2018 [B/o] KL

¶34

7 MSRM, J

¶35

W.P.No.22597 of 2017

¶36

¶37

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.22597 of 2017

¶39

Date: 8^th August, 2018

¶40

Devarla Erranna, v. The Principle Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarla Erranna, v. The Principle Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandavilli Machari Veera Raju Vs Narne Sreenivasa Rao

Kata Venkata Reddy Vs The Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Kata Venkata Reddy Vs The Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

K. Durga Prasad Rao Vs Power Generation Corporation of A.P limited

M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited Vs M/s. Lohman Castings Private Limited

Nazneen Sulatna, Visakhapatnam Dist. Vs the Union of India, New Delhi, and 5 Otrs.