Darshandas v. 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments

4. Sri Naresh Singh, S/o Chunnu Singh, Aged aboul T2 years, occ. not known, H.No.9-8-86, Kummarawadi, Rajputwadi, Fathedarwala, 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 a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings of the '1 St respondent i.e., The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad passed in Rc.No.F/1623/2018, dated 10{9-2018 granting permission to construct two tin- sheds in the temple premises of Sri Hanuman Temple, Companybagh, Langerhouse, Golkonda, Hyderabad belonging to Sri Bansidar Baba Mutt, Fathedarwaja, Golkonda, Hyderabad under donor scheme as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law, one without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice. I.// I.A.NO:1 OF 2018 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 SUSPEND the proceedings of the 1st respondent i.e., The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad passed in Re.No.F/1623/20 t 8, dated 10-09-2018, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI G.NARASIMHA MURTHY The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. 36540 0F 20r8 ORDER: I I This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "...to issue a wdt order or direction more pa.ticularly a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the l* respondent i.e. The Assistant Commissioncr of Endowments Hyderabad passed in Rc.No.F/1623/2018 dated 10.09.2018 granting permission to constru(t t\r'u trn sheds in the temple premises of Sri Hanuman Temple Companybagh Langerhouse Oolkonda Hydcrabzrd bclonging to Sri Bansidar Bata Mutt Fathcdarwaja Colkonda Hyderabad under donor scheme as bad illcgal arbitrnly opposed to law one without jurisdiction violation of principles of natural justice and pass..."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Mahant of Sri Bansidar Baba Mutt at Fathedanvaja, Golconda, Hyderabad. He claimed that respondent No. I had passed an order on 10.09.2018 in Rc.No.F/ 162312018, granting permission to rcspondent No.4 to construct two tin sheds on thc ten-rplr: prcrnises under the "Donor Scheme", without giving auy notice to the petitioner. It is further alleged that resl)on(lent No, l l-racl no connection with the Mutt and was knou'n lor gr:rbbing lands belonging to temples and religious institutior-rs. He submitted that even though he had tnade a cotnplaint to respondent No. l, the authorities had allorved the / / / 2 EVV,J WP.No.36540 2018 construction to proceed. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 had started constructing a permanent structure on the land belonging to Sri Hanuman Temple, which is part of the Mutt, and might later use it to collect rent- Aggrievecl by the action of respondent Nos.1 and 4, the petitioncr approached this Court by frling the present wrrt petltron.

3. Heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner; ancl Sri Mangilal Naik, learned Government Plezrder for Enclou,ments appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3. There is no representation on behalf of un-official respondent No.4.

4. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. I granted permission to respondent No.4 to constrLrct tu,o tin sheds on the temple premises through tl-re inrpugnerl proceedings dated 1O.09.2018, without condtrcting aru, t'nqtriry into respondent No.4's authority ancl s'rthout issuir-rg itny notice to the petitioner. Hence, he pra_ys th{r Court to allo',v the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No. 1. ,/t // 3 EVV,J WP.No.36540 2018

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments submitted that respondent No. I received a complaint of the petitioner about some private persons making illegal constructions on the Mutt's land. He further submitted that if the authorities concerned investigate into the illegal construction, it will not cause any trouble to the petitioner or respondent No.4. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitione r as well as learned Government Pleader lor Endowments for the respondents and upon peflrsal of the impugned order dated 1O.09.2018 in R.C.No.F/ 1623/2028 issued by respondent No.l, it appears that respondent No.l has issued permission for construction of two rooms/tin shecls in the Sri Hanuman Temple, Companybagh, I.anger houz, Golconda, Hyderabad to the respondent No.4 uncler the Donor Scheme. On perusal of the record, it shor'vs that the respondent No.4 has obtained due permission frorn the authorities concerned for construction of trvo tin sheds. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order / I EVV,J WP.No.36540 2018 is not passed in accordance with law by respondent No.1 .1 without conducting proper enquiry. The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is proceedings with the construction over the subject temple land is only an apprehension and exaggeration. No prejudice would be caused to either parties if an order is passed for conducting due enquiry as to the ownership of the subject temple property.

7. In view of the observations by this Court, this Court hnds no illegality irregularity in the impugned proceedings clated 1O.09.2018 issued by respondent No.1. However, respondent No.? is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry with regard to the illegal construction being made by the vestecl part ios over the sr:bject temple land. It is also made clear that no observation is made with regard to the title of the su bject land by this Court

8. With the abor.e observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of Miscellarreous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// r I To

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, H Z. fn" Corrnissioner of Endowments, State of Tel Road, Abids. HYderabad. S /. T. SRINIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER ulakunta, Tilak I I c. The Princrpal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Departrnent, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

4. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI G.NARASIMHA MURTHY, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA PVL w HIGH COURT I \ DATED:1910312025 1 HE SIA .9 2oJAtl 206 * * ORDER WP.No.36540 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ,€' 10 K""