The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ one more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in acquiring the patta lands and inam lands of Sri chennakeshava Swamy Temple, Janagoan District, Warangal Dist for an extent of Ac 25-00 Gts without paying any compensation to the petitioner and further declare the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the petitioners application for Occupancy rights certificate (ORC) in Sy.No.198 to ;rn extent of Ac 2-24 Gts and in Sy.No. 199 to an extent of Ac 2-08 Gts as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 26, 300A of the Constitution of lndia and conr;equently direct the Respondents; a. To provide permanent source of income for rendering service to the temple in with the remaining patta lands in Sy.No.'t79 to an extent of Ac 6 - 31 Gts b. To grant occupancy right certificate with respect to the inam land in Sy.No.198 to an extent ot Ac 2-24 Gts and in Sy.No. 199 to an extent of Ac 2-08 G:s. c. To provide compensation for acquiring the lands Ac 16-35 Gts of lnam lands in Sy.No. 180, 181 , 191 , 192,2O0,201 AND Ac I - 34 Gts of patta lands in Sy.No. 178, 184, 185,'190, 195, 196, 197 which were burdened with th a condition of rendering services. d. Not to create any third party interest over the inam land in Sy. No.1 98 to an extent Ac 2-24 Gts and in Sy.No. 199 to an extent of Ac 2-08 Gts and patta lands n Sy.No.179 to an extent of Ac 6 -3'l Gts which would negate our right lo perform archaka service at Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, Janag,lsn Town and Mandal, Janagoan District lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 Rr:spondents to consider our application for grant of occupancy rights certificate in Sy.No.198 to an extent of Ac 2-24 Gts and in Sy.No. 199 to an extent of Ac 2-08 Cts pending disposal of the above writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 R,:spondents not to create any third party interest over the inam land in Sy.No.198 to an extent of Ac 2- 24 Gts and in Sy.No. 't99 to an extent of Ac 2-08 Gts and patta lands in Sy.No.179 to an extent of Ac 6 -31 Gts without considering our application dated: 31/08/2021 pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI RAVI CHANDRA BEJJARAM Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2&4: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3,5 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.7 : SRI K. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY' SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER t wp_3517O_2O2 1 NBK, J THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION N0.35170 of 2021 o DE R: The case of the petitioners, as per the writ affldavit, is that their family has rendered uninterrupted Archaka services at the Temple since t910, through multiple generations-from their forefather Sri Bhasyam Ramayya to the current petitioners. To sustain this religious duty, the family was granted inam lands with rights to hold and cultivate the lands, linked to their performance ,lf religious rituals at the Temple. He contends that this system of land-baserl remuneration was essential to their survival and to the continuity of Temple worship, and that these lands constitute their sole livelihood. Il is stated that the subject lands have historically been acknowledge,l in govemment records as tied to their service. Specifically, their family's possession is documented in official Khasra Pahanis from 1954-55 through 2009- 10. I'he name of the Deity appears as the pattadar (title holder), while the names of the forefathers of petitioners appear in the possession (:olumn, reflecting the religious service-based occupancy. Supporting the claims, petitioners refer to historical rent payment notices, including one issued under Sections 59 and 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act, 1966 on 28.10.1971. and another dated 17.1I .1975 (Account No 12704\, demanding Rs. 2100/-, which was paid on22.06.1972. l.l [t is stated that the Government of Telangana, following district bifurcation, ,lecided to construct a new Collectorate Office for Janagoan District. For this, the government identified the Temple's lands for acquisition. On 08.03.2017, in W.P. No. 5712 of 2017 in W.P. No. 10547 of 2006rthis Cc,urt pennitted such acquisition, stipulating that compensation be paid to the Temple. Subsequently, through Rc.No. B11316/2016 ,/ 2 wp_35170-202 I NBK, J

08.04.20[7, the 3rd respondent acquired Acres 25-00 Guntas of land spread across Survey Nos. 178, 179, 180, 181, 184, [85, 190, 191,192, 195, 196, 197 , 198, 199,200, and 20 I , including Acres I 6-3 5 Guntas of [nam lands and Acres 9-34 Guntas of Patta lands, for which Rs. 7 crore was paid as compensation to the Temple-institution, but not to the petitionerss. The petitioners emphasizes that at no point were the archakas infonned. consulted, or compensated, despite being in lawful possession and service- based occupation.

1.2 tt is further stated that the inam lands, by their very legal and historical nature, were granted as conditional grants for the performance of religious service. Under Board Standing Order 54 and Section 77 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987, such inam lands can only be resumed by the state in case of non- performance of service. Since the petitioners have continuously performed their duties, the resumption of lands without compensation is, he assefts, not only illegal but a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects property rights. To buttress this claim, the petitioners cite the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Peddinti Venkata Murali Ranganatha Desika Iyengar v. Government of Andhra Pradeshl,which declared Section 76 of the Endowrnents Act, 1987, unconstitutional for denying service inam holders their rights. He also refers to the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955, and its 1994 Amendment, under which the Deity is recorded as the occupant, but tenants-like the petitioners-are entitled to Occupancy Rights Ceniflcates. [t is contended that even if their right to an ORC were to be denied, they would still be entitled to compensation for the land acquired. . 1 AtR 1996 SC 966 3 wp_35170_2021 N8K, J

1.3 The petitioners also emphasize that their right to perform religious duties and sustain family through Temple lands is protected under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) and Article 2l (right to life) of the Cons'-itution. They asseft that any acquisition of Temple lands that disrupts the t:ssential practice of worship, including pooja, renders the service impossible and violates the right to freely practice religion. [t is contended that any colllpensation scheme must provide a perrnanent source of income for archakas, notjust temporary salaries, to ensure the continuation of this hereditary and religious obligation. l'4 It is stated that other states like Kerala, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu have enacted specific legislation acknowledging the rights of Service lnam holders and ensuring compensation. He also invokes Section 2(x) of the Right to F.ir compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,which includes among.,interested persons" thor;e whose primary livelihood is adversely affected by acquisition. Based on thir;, petitioners insist that their exclusion from compensation and consultation was arbitrary and unconstitutional. l'5 'Ihe petitioners subrnitted representations-one on I 9.06.202l, and another on 31.08.2021-requesting the grant of occupancy rights certificate over Sy. No. l9g (Acres 2-24Gts)and Sy. No. 199 (Acres 2_0g Gts) and urging the government not to create any third-party interests while their claim was pending. Despite this, the 6th respondent proceeded to issue a tender notification for lease of the lands, without specifying the area, extent, or survey numbers, and without obtaining the sanction of the State Government :m required under Section 75 of the Endowments Act, lgg7. 4 wp_35170_2021 NBK, J

1.6 The petitioners contend that the respondents have not denied the compensation paid to the Temple, however, the petitioners assert that mere compensation to the Temple does not equate to compensation for those in actual possession who have lost livelihood due to the acquisition; and therefore the petitioners seek to declare the respondents' acquisition of both patta and inam lands-totalling Acres 25-00 Guntas-without compensating ' the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary.

1.7 The petitioners therefore pray for a direction declaring the respondents' actions in acquiring Temple lands without compensating them as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. He therefore seeks (a) provision of a perrnanent income source tied to the remaining patta lands in Sy. No. 179 (Acres 6-31 Gts) and Sy. No. 78 (Acres 0-39 Gts); (b) grant of ORCs for Sy. No. 198 (Acres 2-24 Gts) and Sy. No. 199 (Acres 2-08 Gts); (c) compensation for acquired inam and patta lands; and (d) a restraint against creating third- party interests over disputed lands. Z. Heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjararn, learned counsel for the petitioners; and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Endowments Department. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel fbr the petitioners, while making submissions in line with the writ affidavit, essentially contends that the petitioners are in possession of the subject lands, and the lands have been acquired by the Govemment and paid compensation in favour of the Temple, but no compensation was paid to the petitioners for the loss of source of income suffered by the petitioners due to the land acquisition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, based on the counter-affidavit

4. filed bylthe respondent No.7-Executive Officer of the Temple, contends that 5 wp_35170_2021 NBK, J the subject Temple is a published/notified Temple under Section 6(b)(ii) of the Endowmrlnts Act of 1987, placing it under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissionr:r of Endowments, Warangal District. Learned Assistant Government Pleader admits that the State Government acquired 25 acres of the Temple's lands for the construction of the Collectorate complex in Jangaon, and the acquisition was carried out by paying the due compensation of Rs.7 Crort:s, paid in favour of the Temple; and approximately 7 to l0 acres of the remaining lands are still being cultivated by the Temple's archakas. It is contended that the Temple retains ownership of these lands and that the petitioners cimnot claim proprietary rights over the lands.

4.1 It is contended that there is no substantiating evidence to support the petitioners claim of hereditary status; and that archakas were historically allowed to cultivate the inam lands as part of their duties to serve the Temple, however, the respondent submits that this arrangement was fiduciary in nature-metrning the archakas held these lands on behalf of the Temple and the Deity, arrd the lands are vested in the name of the Temple and Deity. It is contended ttLat, at the petitioners'own request, they were given salaries in lieu of cultivating the lands but subsequently they refused the salaries and insisted on being glanted ORC for the lands. The respondent contends that the petitioners cannot assert any proprietary claim over the lands of the Temple, which remain under its legal ownership.

4.2 [t is contended that the case in Peddinti Venkata Murali (supra) is misplacecl; and that Section 4(l) of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, clearly states that no individual, including the archakas, can claim occupancy rights to iram lands held for the benefit of a charitable and religious institution, and therefore, the petitioners' request for the grant of an Occupancy Rights Certificate is legally untenable. It is contended that the 6 wp_35170_2021 NBK, J petitioners' rights to perform archaka services have not been infringed upon and the petitioners continue to receive salaries and maintenance expenses from the Temple.

5. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, denying all allegations. The petitioners assert that the 7th respondent rnisunderstood the fundamental purpose of the writ petition. [t is reiterated by the petitioners that the subject land belonging to the Temple is critical to their livelihood, and the petitioners' family has historically depended on the crops raised on these lands for their sustenance. [t is reiterated that the lands in question are inam and patta lands that were originally granted by the Rulers to the Temple, with the crops produced from tl'rese lands serving as the main source of livelihood for the petitioners' family for several generations. According to the petitioners, the lands are subject to the provisions of the [nams Abolition Act, 1955, and the Endowments Act, 1966, which govern land rights related to Temples and religious institutions. Furthermore, the acquisition of these lands by the State for public purposes, is covered under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

5.1 The petitioners deny the respondents claim that the petitioners have been receiving salaries fiom the Ternple lor their services as archakas. The petitioners assert that they only began receiving salaries in 2023, and prior to that, their livelihood was solely derived from the crops raised on the Temple's lands. The petitioners dispute the respondent's assertion that salaries have been provided to the petitioners' t-arnily for decades, and calls for proof from the 7th respondent to substantiate that claim. The petitioners further emphasize that while the Ternple was registered in 2008, it had existed for over 100 years prior to that. During this long period, the petitioners' family 7 wp_35170_2021 NBK, J has provided siervices to the Temple, and their livelihood has been tied to the Temple's lands. The petitioners highlight that the lands were not only cultivated by their family but were recorded as such in the revenue records, further supporling the petitioners' claim to compensation fbr the loss of their livelihood following the acquisition of these lands. 1'he petitioners contend that as per Section 2(x) of the relevant legislation, they qualify as "interested persons," entitling them to compensation for the lands acquired by the State, as they were ,lirectly affected by the loss of their livelihood.

5.2 'the petitioners assert that they have never sought ownership of the lands, nor have they taken loans against the property. The petitioners' role has always bt:en one of service to the Temple, and that they continue to render this service. 'Ihey contend that the Temple, which has taken the lands for its own use and for the public purpose of constructing a collectorate cornplex, is now legally obliged to compensate the petitioners for the land acquisition.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that though the petitioners assert possession of lands historically tied to Temple service since l9[0, purportedly as possessors in the revenue records, the lands primarily belong to the Temple and therefore the Deity is ihe owner of the properties, and the petitioners performing priest services, have been cultivating the land and enjoying the crop yield fbr sustenance. Merely because the individual names are recorded in the possessor column of revenue records, that by itself does not delve upon such individuals any ownership or titular rights entitling them to compensation in case of acquisition of land. The subject Temple is a recognized charitable institution under the Endowments Act, 1987, and the lands remain the property of the Temple, thereby disallowing proprietary claims by individuat archakas. Further, Section a(1) of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 8 wp_35 170_2021 N8K, J explicitly precludes any individual occupancy rights over inam lands vested in religious institutions. Furtherrnore, the respondents have rightly provided compensation to the Temple as the recognized titleholder. Further, the petitioners who have been permitted to cr,rltivate the Temple lands solely for survival and providing services to the Ternple, cannot fall within "interested persons" under Section 2(x) of the Act, for the purpose of compensation, as the Act contemplates compensation primarily for those holding recognized rights or interests in the land, a condition not satisfied by the petitioners in the instant case, as the subject lands belong to the Temple and the Deity is the owner of the lands. [n that view of the matter, the petitioners are neither entitled to compensation, nor alternative [and, on account of land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for public purpose.

6.2 However, with regard to the aspect of permanent source of income for the petitioners, on account of losing their livelihood due to acquisition of Temple lands, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have depended on the cultivation of Temple lands fbr survival. would be incumbent on the respondent-authorities to provide source of income to the petitioners, in the event of petitioners choosing to continue to perform services to the Temple/Deity.

6.3 In this connection, it is relevant to ref'er to the Proceedings issued by the Endowments Department, vide Rc.No.Cl1708712020, dated 09.08.2023 wherein it is stated as follows: "ln the reference 7d cited, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal has submifted a proposal for sanction of remuneration to the Archakas and other employees rendering seruices in the subject Temple. t' 9 wp_35 I 7O_202 1 N8K, J After careful examination, permission is hereby accorded to the Execurive Officer, Sri Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Janagaon town and Distric, to pay remuneration from 01.07.2023 from the Temples funds to the foltowing religious staff. The action of the Executive Officer of the subject Temple is hereby ratifiect for payments made to the archakas and other employees from August, 2019 to march, 2021 without prior permr'ssion from the competent authority."

6.4 From the above Proceedings dated 09.08.2023, it appears that a proposal fc,r sanction of remuneration at the rate of Rs.20,000 from 01.07.2023 has been finalized by the Endowments Department, to the petitioners lbr providing services to the Temple; however, it is not clear as to whether the remuneration to the petitioners is permanent in nature, forming part of, a Fray-scale etc. It may be noted that the petitioners have been performing priest services in the subject Temple, and for sustenance they used to cultivate the subject lands. However, due to the temple land acquisition for public purpose, the petitioners lost their source of income, and therefore this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition insofar as the prayer for permanent source of ir.come.

6.5 However, with regard to the other reliefs, namely, l) .frtr issuance o1'Occupancy Rights Certificates in the remaining patta lctnds of Survev no. i79 (Ac.6-31 guntas); 2) issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect 6f inam land in Sy.No.l98 (Ac.2-24 guntas), and Sy.No.l99 (Ac.2- 08 guntas); 3) compensationfor acquiring the lands in Ac.l6-35 guntas of inam lands in Sy.Nos.l80, l8l, l9l, 192,200,201, and Ac.9-34 guntas of patta land,s in Sy.No.l78, 184, 185, 190, 195, 196, 197 burdened with condition c'f rendering service; 4) not to create any third party interest over the inam land in Sy.No.l98 (Ac.2-24 guntas) and Sy.No.l99 (Ac.2-08 guntas) 10 wp_35170-2021 NBK, ! and patta lands in sy.No.t79 (Ac.6-31 guntasl, in view of the fact that the petitioners have no vested or individuai rights over the subject Temple lands' and therefore no such reliefs of Occupancy Rights Certificate or compensation for the acquired lands or altemative lands' or injunction against the State on the lands, can be granted'

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly-allowed. holding that the petitioners are entitled to a perrnanent source of income as their livelihood for performing Temple services, and directing the respondent No' l to provide such permanent source of income. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.SRE ENIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ,o,.,. HYderabad' principal Secretary (Endowments) Revenue state of Telangana' Secretariat' rirak Road' Hvderabad to Raju Hotel' H'No 3 3e,#lli',i*?[arlX?:&",11',?=?H3iq'"i-btt"{urkunta' 4. The oeputi,-'c6mmislion",'ii'?ndJwm61t9.'"boo o o, gi:[[5 ffi :1 ffil "SrHSJl [T',["# i;fl 3fl 3? ] a n a s o a n r ow n a n d D i stri ct' B';:'", rempre Janasoan rown and g. HH?,il.l"t*ytn?lllffhH3"1Xt',?l Warangal Dist q, ?flilir"E $H*l"mwmm fl [*nHrh",#!'r#' ?,,," .r ,,l +*:"gu"J"BE FoR RE'EN,E, Hish court ror the state or relangana' tz.Two CD CoPies PVL TKS Pr'Lc' HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER WP.No.35170 ot 2021 B C) ) IHE S ( 2 { ri i{ T,ilii .t,,,.* D, ::r n * PARTLY'- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l" e/,q. L\\v\te