Disposed

C S Srama v. Prl.Secy., Endowments, Gun., and 7 Others

Telangana HC26 Apr 2018WP/30392/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three interconnected writ petitions regarding disputed temple priesthood rights. Finding a pending original application before the Endowments Tribunal on the merits, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to implement the family arrangement pending the Tribunal's decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to implement the family arrangement executed on 28.7.2011 pending the decision of the Endowments Tribunal in O.A.308 of 2017.

C S Srama Vs Prl.Secy., Endowments, Gun… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON .NOs. 18234, 20017 AND 30392 OF

¶2

2017

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

These three Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order after hearing the learned counsel for both sides.

¶5

There is one temple called Sri Satra Sala Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam, Jettipalem village, Rentachinthala mandal, Guntur district. One Ch. Siva Shankaraiah has been rendering archakatvam service in the said temple along with his another brother on rotation basis. The said Satra Sala Malleswara Swamy temple is also called Ganga Brahmarambha Sametha Malleswaraswamy temple. The temple has got an extent of Ac.91.44 cents in various survey numbers of Palvai, Tumrukota, Goli and Adigoppula villages of Rentachinthala Mandal, Guntur district. All the properties are being put to auction. The temple is a notified temple Under Section-6 (c) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The said Siva Shankaraiah expired in the year 1991. He left behind him four sons. One of the sons, Ch. Siva Sarma’s name was shown as hereditary archaka. The widow of Siva Shankaraiah submitted a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments stating that the said

¶6

¶7

Siva Sarma has not been looking after her and all the sons agreed to render the archakatvam service on rotation basis by entering into an agreement on 28.7.2011. The family arrangement was reduced into writing. The arrangement speaks of rendering of archakatvam service by four sons of Siva Shankaraiah for one year and three sons of one Venkateshwarlu for one year, alternatively. When an order was passed on 5.11.2013 by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments regarding the information furnished by the Manager that the four sons of said Siva Shankaraiah can be permitted to render the service of archakatvam, the said order was challenged by the petitioner, Ch.Siva Sarma in W.P.No.33287 of 2018. This Court, by order dated 23.2.2017 disposed of the said Writ Petition after hearing the other three sons giving liberty to the petitioner therein to avail the alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance, and stating that the rights of the parties under the family arrangement is a disputed question which has to be decided by the competent Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner in W.P.No.18234 of 2017 filed O.A.308 of 2017 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur district and the same is pending. He filed Interlocutory Application seeking suspension of the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated

¶8

¶9

5.11.2013. But, in the absence of a Presiding Officer, no order has been passed. In view of the same, he field W.P.No.18234 of 2017 challenging another order of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 8.5.2017 allowing the petitioner as well as his three brothers to work as archakas till the issue is decided by the Endowments Tribunal. When the matter was pending, the other three brothers filed W.P.No.20017 of 2017 challenging the action of the respondents 3 and 4 therein, Inspector and Manager of the temple in not handing over the temple key for rendering archakatavam service by the petitioners by implementing the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 5.11.2013 and 8.5.2017. But it appears that after filing the above Writ Petition, the keys were handed over to the petitioners in WP.No.20017 of 2017, by virtue of which, they have been performing the archakatvam service. When the keys were handed over, the petitioner in W.P.No.18234 of 2017 filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.30392 of 2017 challenging the action of the 4^th respondent therein in handing over the keys of the temple to one of the brothers.

¶10

Thus, all these Writ Petitions are inter connected and the petitioner in W.P.No.18234 of 2017 and W.P.No.30392 of 2017 is common, whereas the other three brothers filed

¶11

¶12

W.P.No.20017 of 2017. There is no dispute that O.A.No.308 of 2017 challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 5.11.2013 and for a consequential relief to continue the petitioner in W.P.No.18234 of 2017 in service as archaka in the temple, is pending. Since the said Original Application is pending before the Endowments Tribunal, it is not proper for this Court to decide on the merits of the case or the rights of the parties.

¶13

Since this Court prima facie found the existence of a family arrangement, the validity of which would incidentally be decided in the pending matter before the Endowments Tribunal, this Court feels that the arrangement which was signed by the petitioners in all these three Writ Petitions can be allowed to operate pending disposal of O.A.No.308 of 2017 before the Endowments Tribunal.

¶14

These three Writ Petitions are thus, disposed of directing the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to implement the family arrangement made and signed by the petitioners on 28.7.2011 pending a decision by the Endowments Tribunal. It is needless to observe that the Endowments Tribunal, as and when it becomes functional, shall dispose of O.A.No.308 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months

¶15

¶16

from the date it becomes functional, without being influenced by the present order.

¶17

These Writ Petitions are accordingly, disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶18

closed. No order as to costs.

¶19

________________________ A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO,J

¶20

Date: 26.4.2018

¶21

KPM

C S Srama v. Prl.Secy., Endowments, Gun., and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C S Srama v. Prl.Secy., Endowments, Gun., and 7 Others

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

Chennamsetti Kesava Rao S/o Jagapathi Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

M/S Sri Gayathri Constructions Vs The State of A.P.

M/s. Vijay Sai Traders Vs The State of Telangana

Pandit Mahaveer Prasad Joshi, Vs State of Telangana

P Nataraja, Prakasam Dist Vs State of Ap and 2 Others

T.Rajya Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh