High Court · 2025

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Diskict Collector, Peddapalli District, Peddapalli Tahsildar, Odela Village and Mandal, Peddapalli District Commissioner of Endowments, Telangana, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Devadaya Dharmadaya Sekha, Sri Raja Rajeswara Kalyana Mandapam, Karimnagar lnspector of Endowments, Peddapalli District, Peddapalli Sri Seetaramachandra Swamy Vari Temple, Odela village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, Rep. its Executive Officer Sri Anjaneyaswamy Vari Temple, Odela village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, Rep. its Executive Officer Sri Devaraju Prahlad Rao, S/ o. Late Narasimha Rao, claiming to be the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Anjaneyaswamy vari temple, Odela village, Peddapalli Mandal and District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3 (District Collector, Peddapalli District) in Case No. D/1/855 of 2024 as being illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to mutate the name of the Petitioners and issue ,r)-patta passbooks to the Petitioners with respect to lands i.e. Ac. 1.05gts in Sy lr.lo. 913/ A, Ac. '1 .05 gts in Sy. No. 913/8, Ac.1.20gts in Sy No. 1'124, Ac.1.21gts in Sy. No. 872lA, Ac.1 .21 gts in Sy. No. 872lB, Ac 3.39 gts in Sy. No. 965/ 1,, and Ac3. 39 Gts in Sy. No. 965/8 situated in Odela Village and Mandal, Peddapalli Village, Telanga na IA NO 10F 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the ( ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 25.09.2024 in ( ase No. Dl1l855 of 2024 passed by the Respondent No.3 pending disposal of the present Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AVINASH DESAI SENIOR C(IUNSEL REP SRI. T.P.S. HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,3&4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&5to7: AGP FOR ENDOVVMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8&9: SRI CH. SATISH KUttrAR, SC The Gourt made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12246 of2025 ORDER: It is stated thal the petitioners are the legal heirs of one late . Narahara Charyulu, who was the owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Ac. 1.O5 guntas in Sy.No.913/A; Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.913/B; Ac.7.2O guntas in Sy.No.1124; Ac.l.2l guntas in Sy.No.872/A; Ac. i.21 guntas in Sy.No.B72/B and Acs.3.39 guntas in Sy.No.965/A and petitioner No.1 is the owner and possessor of Acs.3.39 guntas in Sy.No.965/B, situated at Odela Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District. It is further stated that the subjcct lands are the ancestral properties of the petitioners and that the names of lheir ancestors have been recorded as pattadars in all the revenue records. It is stated that while recording the names of petitioners ances[ors as pattadars, the names of the temples i.e. Sri Sitaramachandra Swamy Temple (Respondent No.9 herein) and Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple (Respondent No. 10 herein) in recorded in pattadar columns. It is further stated that the name of Late Narahara Charyulu, was recorded as pattadar, who rendered services as Pujari of both the temples throughout his life. It is also stated that pattadar passbooks have been issued uide passbook, dated 27.06.2018 and 79.04.2018 in the name of petitioner No.1 (for Ac.3.39 guntas) and late Narahara Chary.u1u t -l i 2 CVBR, J Wp 12246 2025 (for Acs.1O.31 guntas), respectively. Tire case of tlte petitioners is that pattadar passbook issued in favour of the pt,titioners wouid demonstrate that the petitioners are Lhe pattadars of the property for all these years and the respondent authorities are not having any authority to delete their names from the revenL e records, that too without conducting any enquiry or without following due procedure. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Considered the submissions of Sri Avinash lesai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.p.S.Harsha, learn:d counsel for the petitioners; Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistan Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No:1.1, 3 and 4; learned ASSiStant Government pleader for Enclowme ets appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 5 to 7; Sri Ch.Satish Kr. mar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.g ard 9 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposr d of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the uncfficiar r:spondent is dispensed with.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petiti oners would submit that the names of the petitioners or their prec ecessors_in- lnterest have been recorded as Pujaris of deities of respondent Nos.9 and 10 temples. It is further submitted that rrnly for the r CVBR, J wp 12246 2025 purpose of identihcation the name of the temples were recorded in the pattadar column and the same does not disentitle the petitioners to claim absolute rights over the property. It is contended that the respondents instead of deleting the name of the temples and replacing the same with the names of petitioners as pattadars, have erroneously deleted the name of the petitioners, due to which, the petitioners were disentitled to receive various incentives granted by the Government for cultivation of the lands.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Endowrrients submits that merely because the petitioners and their predecessors rendered services, their names were recorded as Puj ari of the temple, the same does not mean the property endowed to the temples would become property of the Pujaris(petitioners). It is further submitted that since there is a dispute with regard to the nature of the land, its classihcation and the entries made in the revenue records and the petitioners having allowed the said entries to be continued till the year, 2018, at this length of time are not entitled to dispute the said entries. It is further submitted that if the petitioners are having any documentarS' evidence in their support, they can institute appropriate case under the provisions of Endowments Act, but not in a writ petition hled under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is also submitted that since there is i l ! I \ 4 CVBR, J Wp 12246 2025 alternative and efficacious rcmedy available to the peti tioners, the present writ petition is not naintainable and pray€ d for dismissal of the writ petition. 5 It is settled law that the entries made in th: pahanies are never considered to be entries relating to Record of Rights (ROR) as per the provisions of the Tera,gana Rights in Lanc and pattadar pass Books Act, l9Tl (hereinafter referred to ,ROR rrct, 1971,) and the said entries are considered for the purpose ol classification of the land, nature of the crops and the cist being cc llected ftrr the crops. Such entries do not confer any right/ title or ownership or take away the existing rights on classification of tlre lands. It is seen from the record that the names of the dieiti:s i.e, Sri Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy and Sri Sri Anjaneya Swamy were recorded as pattadars along with the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. In vieu. of the serious disputes vilh regard to nature of lands, its classihcation, the extent mentionc d therein and also the rights of the petitioners as pattadars vis_a- ris, recording the name of deities, these issues are required to be examined by the Endowments Tribunal constituted under the pro.,isions of the Endowments Act. It is apt to extract Section g7 oI t. re Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, I9a7 $or short "Endowments Act,,), which reads as foll:ws: t, 5 CVBR, J wp-t2246]02s "Section 87 - Power ol End.owments Tribunal to decide certain disputes q.nd. matters (1) The Endowments Tibunal hauinq ruisdtction shall hque the power, after givino notice in the prescibed manner to the person concented, to enquire into and decide anA dispute as to the question,- (a) whether an instthttion or endourment is a charitable institution or endoument; (b) uhether an institution or endolument is a religious institution or endou.tment; (c) uhether orul propertu is an endotument, if so whether it is a chaitable endouLment or a religious endowment; (d) whether ang propertg is a specific endowment; (e) uthether ong person Is entitled bLt qtstom or othenise to ang honor, emoLuments or perquisites uL anu chaitabte or religious institution or endowment and whqt the esttzb[ished usage of such institution or endotl'ment ts in regard to ang other matter; (fl uJhether Gnu institution or end.owitetlt ts whollg or partlu of a seanlar or reLiqious character qnd whether onA propertA is giuen wholly or partlg for sealar or reltgious uses, or (q) uthere anu propertu or moneu has been giuen for the support of an institution or endotament u)hich is partlu of a seadar chqrqcter qnd partlu of a religious character or the perfonnance of arut seruice or chaitll connected tLtith such instituton o. endou,ment or the performance of a chaitu tuhich is partht of a seaiar character and partlg of a religious chqrqcter or where anu propert!.1 or mone!.! giuen is appropiated partfi1 to sea ar uses and partlu to reliqious uses, as to uhat portion of such propertg or moneg shall be allocated to seanlar or religtous uses; (h) whether a persoa is a founder or a ntember from the famitg of the founder of an institutiotl or endowment. (2) TLe Endowments Tribunal maq, pendtng rts decision under sub- section (1), pess such order qs it deems fit for the administration of the propertu or custodg of the moneg belongirtg to the tnstitution or endourment. (3) The Endouments Tnbunal mag uh e recordinq its decision undet sub-section (1) and pendtnq implementation of such decision, po.ss such inteim order as it ma!1 deem frt for safequardinq the tnterests of the istitutton or endowment and for preuentinq damaqe to or loss or misoppropriation or ciminal breach of tntst in respect of the properties or moftqts belonging to or in the possession of the irustitution or endou)ment. (4) The presumptton in respect of matters couered bg clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in sub-section (1) ts that the instttution or the endowment is a public one and that the burden of proof in qlt such ca,ses shall lie on the person clqiming the tnstitution or the endowment to be priuate or the properfut or moneu to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endoument, as the case maA be. u *._,rriJ?[ri (5) NotLut hstendinq anut hino uep_ut u ( ommissioner haui^" :?::",i^:d -the aboue ub sccrions the and decide ,h; ;;r,p;i;:'ilnsdrctton shott continu, to "nquire into constitution ,r ,n"ii1i,ii,""i'{iif,lZ,.'"" sub-sec/io,, I I t untit rhe If the petitioners claim that they are the pattadanr and the subject lands are not endowed to the deities, they are at liberly to agitate their grievance before the Endowments Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Endowments Act. In the ever t of petitioners approaches the trndowments Tribunal, the Tribu,ar sharl decide the lis without being influenced by the observatio_rs made by the District collector in the impugned order as we, as ry this court in this writ petition 6 With the above observations, this Writ petitior is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous shall stand closed. petltions pc nd ing, it any, To, //TRUE COPYII ^\A Sd/. TI. PONNA KRISHNA Srpu;txrnectsrRAR -f \ , SECTION OFFICER ! 1 2 J 4 5 o .S.,Flyderabad t, HyCerabad The Secretary, Revenud Department, Secretariat, The Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretaria The District Collector, Peddapalli District, Peddapalli The Tahsildar, Odela Village and Mandal, Peddapall The Commissioner of Endowments, Telangana, Boggulkttnta, Hyderabad The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Devadaya Dharmadaya Sekha, Sri Raja Rajeswara Kalyana Mandapam, Karimnagar The lnspector of Endowments, Peddapalli District, Peddapalli 7 One CC to SRl. T.P.S. HARSHA, Advocate [OPUC] 8 I Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 'l0.Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Corrrt for the State of i District Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.One CC to SRl, CH. SATISH KUMAR, STANDING COU\SEL [OPUC] 12.Two CD Copies BM \q- teM ,] HIGH COURT CVBR,J DATED:2410412025 t .i ) I -,gE S lzr ( t 2 ]J -\" 11 JUN 26 {.,r ORDER WP.No.12246 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1to v, 6ff"