Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple Trust v. Annapuredy Bali Reddy & Ors.

Judgment

#1. Nemalipuri village, Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple Trust, Rajupalem mandal, Palanaduur (Guntur) district Represented by its Secretary, Sri. Annapureddy Bali Reddy S/o Papaiah Reddy @ Papi Reddy. Kota

#2. Annapuredy Bali Reddy, S/o Papaih Reddy @ Papireddy, Aged 72 years, Kota Nemalipuri village, Rajupalem mandal Palanaduur (Guntur) district.

#3. Banavathu Krishna Naik, S/o Hanuma Naik Aged 63 years, Kota Nemalipuri village, Rajupalem mandal, Palanaduur (Guntur) district. 4. Kommasani Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o Chenna Reddy Aged 69 years, Kota Nemalipuri village, Rajupalem mandal Palanaduur (Guntur) district. AND ...PETITIONERS

#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

#2. The District Collector, Palanadu district, Narasarao pet Palanadu (Guntur) district.

#3. The Tahsildar, Rajupalem mandal Palanadu (Guntur) district. 4. The District Endowments Officer, Endowments Department Narasarao Pet, Palanadu (Guntur) district.

#5. The Manager, Kodandaramaswamy and Anjaneyaswamy temple, Kota Nemalipuri, Rajupalem mandal, (Guntur) Palanadu district.

#6. The Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli, (Guntur) Palanadu district.

#7. Muppala Bala Krishna, S/o Radhakrishna, Nemalipuri village, -Rajupalem mandal, (Guntur) Palanadu district. 4«V ^ i'. ...RESPONDENTS -V'. pefition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in

the cireumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents on the representations of the petitioners in the name and on behalf of Sri Kodandarama Swamy temple, Kotanemalipuri to prosecute the 7“^ respondent and all the concerned and evict from Ac. 10 Acres of agricultural land situate in Sy.Nos.249/2B and 249/2A of Nemalipuri village as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, violative of Article 14,19 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to register crime against the 7“" respondent, recover damages towards the loss of usufruct and hand over the same to the 1®* petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents to issue Pattadar Pass book in the name of Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple by initiating prosecution against the 7th respondent for unlawfully encroaching into the 10 acres of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.249/2B and 249/2Aof Nemalipuri village, Rajupalem mandal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4:GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.5:SRI M. SRINIVAS RAO, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.7:SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA The Court made the following: ORDER \ APHC010001712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 86/2025 Between: Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple Trust, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

2.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

3.GP FOR REVENUE

4.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: " to declaring the inaction of respondents on the representations of the petitioners in the name and on behalf of Sri Kodandarama Swamy temple Kotanemalipuri to prosecute the z"" respondent and all the concerned and 2 Sf and 249/2A evict from Ac.10 Acres of agricultural land situate in Sy.Nos.249/2B arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and conseguently direct the respondents to register crime against the respondentrecoverdamages towards the loss of usufruct and hand over the same to the f®' petitioner....” Nemalipuri village

#2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1"‘ petitioner-Trust was constituted registered Reg.No. 197/2022,

9.12.2022 renovate and maintain Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple, Kota Nemalipuri. The ancestors of the petitioners created a specific endowment of Ac. 19.74 cents of agricultural land possessed by them in Survey Nos.249/2B and 249/2A of Nemalipuri village (for short “subject property”). In 1920 an another unregistered settlement deed was executed, granting usufruct/koul in favour of Archakas Sri Narayanam Gopalacharyulu and cover the expenditure for his honorarium and costs rituals and celebrations. They permitted cultivate lands. Accordingly, cultivated/leased out the lands to meet these expenses. The Deity of the temple is the absolute owner of the above said property and the ROR and Adangal of Nemalipuri village reflect the name of incumbent manager of Sri. Kodanda Ramaswamy Temple. The Archaka was only entitled honorarium for the services. While things stood thus, the 7'^ respondent obtained a sale deed from one Sri Narayanam Seshu Babu vide document No.1103/2010, dated 02.03.2010 in respect of 5 acres in Sy.No.249/2B. Upon noticing the sale deed executed by the above said Seshu babu, the petitioners 3 complained the same to Sub Registrar, Piduguralla requesting to cancel the invalid sale deed and 4*'^ respondent to take over the possession of the subject property. After receipt of complaint, the Commissioner & Inspector, General Stamps Registration, pleased Issue Lr.No.Can/9006/2010, dated 24.06.2010 to cancel the registration. Aggrieved by the same, the 7**^ respondent filed W.P.No. 17477/2010 and the same was dismissed

21.07.2010. Consequently, Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department was pleased execute a cancellation deed bearing No.1955/2011, dated 29.03.2011 stating that the vendor had no right and the Deity of the temple is true owner and the document No.1103/2010,

02.03.2010 was cancelled the 4 respondent. Again, the 7^^ respondent filed W.P.No.14814/2011 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2012. Thereafter, the 7 respondent filed O.S.No. 12/2012 before the learned District Judge, Guntur and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 06.05.2024. However, respondent encroached the subject property without any valid sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

#3. Heard Mr.Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners: Mr.P.Srinivas learned Assistant Government Pleader Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 7^^ respondent. ’ $

#4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the respondent has unlawfully encroached upon valuable land irrigated by the Sagar Canal, using a fake sale deed in the name of a person whose whereabouts are unknown. The petitioners have also lodged a complaint with respondents 4 to 6, requesting the eviction of the 7*'" respondent from the temple lands and appropriate action to be taken. The 4*^ respondent is the competent authority to evict any person from the endowment lands. Despite the passage of a considerable amount of time, the respondents have not taken any action. The descendants of the hereditary trustees constituted the 1®* petitioner-Trust and had it registered to manage the affairs of the temple properties endowed to the Sri Kodandaramaswamy temple and to conduct the rituals. Thus, the petitioner-trust has right and obligation to protect the temple lands which endowed by the petitioners’ forefathers and use the usufruct for the purposes of the trust. He further submits that the lands are notified under Section 22(a)(2) of Registration. The respondent authorities have obligation to protect the interest of properties of the temple. Despite clear evidence and records the respondents are not taking any action against the 7^^ respondent. The 3'"^ respondent is not issuing Pattadar Pass Book in the name of the temple though the name of the temple is reflecting in 1-B register. He further submits that the 7‘^ respondent has no right over the subject property and all the proceedings initiated by the 7**^ respondent were rejected by this Court as well 5 % as the learned District Judge, Guntur. The 7'^ respondent is unlawfully enjoying 10 acres of land belonging to the temple encroached by him and with the direct or indirect support of the respondent authorities. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

#5. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished a copy of written instructions vide Lr.in.Rc.No.A2/23/25, dated 03.01.2025 issued by the District Endowment Officer and submits that the petitioner along with others made a representation to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Gollapudi, requesting the withdrawal of the Executive Officer appointed by the Commissioner and the transfer of the management of the temple to them, as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.298, Revenue (Endts-ll) Department, dated 06.07.2023, since the income of the temple is below five per annum. Accordingly, getting reports, the Commissioner Endowments Department A.P. Gollapudi passed orders D.Dis.No.D2/COE-14021(42)/6/2024,

28.05.2024 certain conditions, and duly granted exemption from the operation of Sections 15, 29 57 and 65 of the Endowments Act 30/1987 for a period of 5 years from the date of handing over the administration and management of the subject temple. He further submits that the petitioners made a representation dated

12.11.2024 to this respondent bringing to the notice of the 4*^ respondent regarding the encroachment made by the 7*^ respondent in an extent of 6 Ac.5.00 cents in addition to the previous occupation of Ac.5.00 cents and requested for initiation of steps for removal of encroachment. In reply to the representation, 4' respondent issued instructions Rc.No.A2/2085/2023, dated 22.11.2024 to the petitioners to produce all files and records relating to the subject matter so as to take further action in the matter. He further submits that, persons responsible management of the said temple, it is the duty of the petitioners to initiate steps for the eviction of the encroachers by issuing a show cause notice under Section 83(2) of the Endowments Act 30/1987, as amended by Act 36/2023, to the 7*^ respondent, and to take further steps based on any explanation or submitted 7*^ respondent. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders.

#6. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions; i. If the petitioners are intends to evict the 7*^ respondent, they are directed to initiate steps for evicting the 7‘^ respondent under Section 83 (2) of the Endowments Act and thereafter submit a report before the respondent temple. 7 ii. Further, the respondent Nos.4 and 6 are directed to cooperate with the petitioners as and when required for eviction of the 7**^ respondent.

#7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

#8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

#1. The PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

#2. The District Collector, Palanadu district, Narasarao pet Palanadu (Guntur) district.

#3. The Tahsildar, Rajupalem mandal Palanadu (Guntur) district. 4. The District Endowments Officer, Endowments Department Narasarao Pet, Palanadu (Guntur) district. Kota

#5. The Manager, Kodandaramaswamy and Anjaneyaswamy temple Nemalipuri, Rajupalem mandal, (Guntur) Palanadu district. 6. The Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli, (Guntur) Palanadu district. 7. One CC to Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate[OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri M. Srinivas Rao, SC for Endowments[OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 11. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

#12. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 13. Three CD Copies. [OUT] [OUT] > HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.86 of 2025 ANOfi^% X 0 5 MAR 20?5 *5, ^ . Current Seciion DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS