1. Chittanuna Chary v. State of Telangana

The Executive Officer, Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Vemulanarva (V), Keshampet (tvl), Ranga Reddy District. Sri.Chandraiah, Sarpanch, Vemulanarva(V), Keshampet (M), Ranga Reddy District.

6. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of 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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 herein in pufting the lease hold rights of Agricultural Lands (Service lnam Lands) ie., Sy.No.27 to 29 and 4'l to an extent of Ac.20-39 Guntas situated in Vemulanarva Village, Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in public auction on 12-05-2018 as illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized one and opposed to the Provisions of the Endowments Act and violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Constitution of i' l* lndia and consequently set-aside the Public Auction conducted on 12-05.2018 in respect of lands in lsy No.27 to 29 and 41 to an extent of Ac.20-39 '.iuntas situated in Vemulanarva Village, Keshampet [\/andal, Ranga Reddy District and further direct the Respondenls No.3 and 4 not to interfere with the peaceftrl possession of the Petitioners lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition underr fiection 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumst ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondents No.3 and 4 from dispossessing the Petit oners herein in respect of lands to ian extent of Ac.20-39 Guntas in Sy.No.27 to 29 rand 41 situated in Vemulanarva Village, Keshampet M.andal, Ranga Reddy D strict, pending disposal of the abo,re Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Cbunsel forthe Respondent NO.4: SRI J.R MANOHAR RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.22532 of 2O18 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- ".....to issue a Wnt, Order or direction more partianlarlg one in the nature of Wit Of Mandamus dectoing the action of the respondent No'4 herein in putting the leose hold nghts of Agicultural Lands Seruice Inam Lands i.e., Sy.Nos.27 to 29 and 41 to an ertent of Ac. 20-39 Guntas situated in Vemulanaruo Village, Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddg District in public anction on 12'05'2018 as i egal, arbitrary and unauthorized one and opposed to the Prouisions of tle Endouments Act and uiolatiue of Artictes 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of india and conseqtaentlA set aside the Public Auction conducted on 12.O5.2018 in respect of londs in Sg.Nos.27 to 29 and 41 to on extent of Acs 2O-39 Guntas situated in Vemulanarua Village, Keshampet Mondal, Ranga Reddg Dist.ict and further direct the Respond.ents No.3 and 4 not to interkre uith the peaceful possession of the Petitioner' ' "

2. The case of the petitioners is that, as lineal descendants of the temple's founder family, they assert their hereditary rights as Poojaris of Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple' Vemulanarva. Their ancestors established the temple and maintained it using the income from Acs'2O-39 guntas of agricultural land granted as Service Inam and they hold equal shares in the land, conduct festivals and jatharas' and serve as founder trustees. Further case of the petitioners is that during 2 N8(,J W.P No.22532 of201E the Razakar ,:ra, the temple deity l'"'as destroyed, ald the petitioners' forefathers reinstalled a new deity. Again, rn ll-12- 2O71,, tLre pel.itioners installed new deities at their owl. expense. The temple is not registered under Section 4:\ of the Endowments .A.ct, 1987 and is maintained solely from agricultural income and personal funds. The Serr.'ice Inam lands in S1z.Nlo.27 (1 acre 9 guntas), Sy.No.2S (1 acre r3 guntas), Sy.No.29 (10 acres 9 guntas), and Sy.No.41 (8 acres 1,3 guntas), totaling 20 eLcres 39 guntas, granted to the petitioners' "r,ere ancestors b]' \/enkata Lachama Reddy of Patti NiLrkhoda-I. Revenue records confirm the petitioners' lawful posses;sion, and the Endowments Department has no control over the lald. Further, petitioners states that in 2015, the village Sarpanch ald local leaders attempted to encroach upon these lands for distribution to landless individuals. The petitioners resisted, and on 22.08.2015, the 3.d respondent permitted them to continue cultivation. Representations were submitt,::d to the Collector, Flalga Reddy District, on 24 .7 | .2(\14 and

29.O5.2O17, seeking protection. Despite this, on 12.05.2018, the Executive Officer of the temple, allegedly at the behest of the Sarpalch, conducted a public auction of the p,:titioners, 3 NBKJ W.P. No.22532 of 2018 lands for lease. The Sarpanch himself secured the lease at a meager amount, thereafter petitioners immediately challenged the auction through representations dated 14'O5'2018 ald 2 1 .05.2018 to the 2'a and 3"1 respondents' seeking its cancellation. They also requested support under the Dhoopa- Deepa-Naivedyam Scheme' Furthermore' the Sarpanch and others illegally appointed Narasimha Chary' son of petitioner No.l, as an Archata for a salary of Rs'2'000/- per month' auction remarns unconhrmed, without jurisdiction. The Charitable and Hindu Religious violating Rule 16 of the Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lalds Rules, 2003, which was not duly followed The petitioners' being in lawful possession and managing temple affairs' were not consulted. Additionally, Section 77 of the Endowments Act' 1987, mandates due process for the resumption of Inam lands' which was ignored by the respondents' Hence the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioners have not resided in the village or performed Archakatwam for ttre past 7-8 years and have also failed to cultivate the temple lands. To prevent encroachment' the authorities conducted a ) 4 N8K,J w.f . No.22532 oI 2018 public auction on 12.05.2018 after providing 10 days' prior notice througtr local announcements. He further sut,mits that Petitioner No. resides in Hyderabad, while Petitione.. No.2 (85 years old) lives in an old-age home. Since the petitiont'rs did not challenge the auction notice, the highest bidder \\'a s granted possession. Ttre respondents further state that idternative Archakas werr: appointed by the villagers and that the petitioners feiiled to cultivate the lald despite being permitted by the Asrsistant Commissioner of Endor,vmeT ts. The respondents dispute the petitioners' hereditary righrs, stating that there is no official recognition under the 'lelangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Enrlowrnents Act, 1987. They argue that Service Inam lands belc,ng to the temple and can only be enjoyed with the Enrlowments Department's; cermission. The 1954-55 Pahanies and later revenue records confirm that the .temple is the patt edar, and the lands rerniiin Endowment property under Sectionr; 75 to 80 of the Act. The1, assert that the petitioners abal<.loned the village, leaving the lands l'ulnerable to encroachment, necessitating t.tre auction. The Executive Officer was appointed I /' I l 5 NBKJ W.P. No.Z253Z of ZorE by the 2.d respondent for better management, and the 201 1 temple renovation was done by villagers, not the petitioners'

4. Additionally, the temple is a published institution under Section 6(c)(ii) and registered und'er Section 43 of the EndowmentsAct.Thelandsareofficiallyrecordedastemple property in revenue documents, including the Dharani portal' and were notified as prohibited properties tn Gazette No' 28' .rdated Og.ll.2}22 by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy' The respondents argue that the petitioners' claims over title should be pursued before the Telangana Endowments Tribunal under Section S7(1)(c) read with Section 45 of the Act' as the writ petition is not maintainable' Learned counsel emphasize that the auction followed legal procedures and that the petitioners' having been absent from the village, failed to approach the authorities before hling this petition' It is pertinent to note that the petitioners claim title to the 5. subject property of Acs'20-39 guntas on the ground of inheritance, ald they claim that they established the deity with their own fund.s al1d maintarning the tempie using the income generated from the subject lands' The said contention is seriously disputed by the respondent department' It is their ^/4 6 NSKJ W.l. No.22532 o12018 specific stand, basing on record, that the subject T,::mple has been publistrerl under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Endou,rnents Act, 1987 (Act 3Ct rf 1987), and also registered under Se(tion 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987. It is to be note-d that irL State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samitir, the Hon'ble Suprt:me Court held as follows: "In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupa'l:ion of the land is also by the deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf of the deity. Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the priest is not. required to be meD.tioned in the column of occupier as well."

6. It is tht: further specific contention of the rr:spondent Department that the claim of title, and whether the petitioner belongs to ttLe Founder Family of the Temple and whether the petitioner has equal shares over the subject prc,perty are questions of fact, which carrnot be decided in a u,ri t petition, ald the petil.ioner ought to have approached the Enr16rryp6n1" Tribunal under the Endowments Act, 1987. ' erR zozr sc qz+s I 1 L l l I I I I I I I I Y :, 1 NEKJ W.P. No-22532 of 201t 7 . Having considered the respective submissions perused the record, in view of the disputed questions of fact, relating to title of the subject property, as well as claim of belonging to founder family of the subject Temple, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to approach appropriate authority under the Act for redress of their grievance' 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed' leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha1l stand closed l I \ To, SD/.K. SREE RAM A MURTHY DEPUTY RE GIST /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI' SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Advocate [O 2. One CC to SRI J'R MANOHAR RAo/sc FOR ENDowM ENTS IOPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWNIENTS, High Court for the State of 4. Two CCs to GP for Revenue' High Court for the State of Telangana at Telangana. [OUTI Pucl Hvd erabad. [OUTI

5. Two CD CoPies KKS BS

4.- HIGH COURT DATED:1 210212025 ORDER WP.No.22532 of 2018 t, k t ttE f 17 ilPn m .o A 8s, AT * DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS