1

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.46652 of 2016

Between:

#Chittibotla Bhardwaja Sarma, ...PETITIONER

AND

$Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 10.04.2025

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION No.46652 of 2016

% 10.04.2025

# Between:

#Chittibotla Bhardwaja Sarma, ...PETITIONER

AND

$Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.V. Raja Ram

! Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Endowments

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: 1. 2001 SCC OnLine AP 133

3

APHC010500022016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3310]

THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 46652/2016

Between:

Chittibotla Bhardwaja Sarma, ...PETITIONER

AND

Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M V RAJA RAAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

2. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

the following relief:

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly

one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Founder Trustee and

Chairman of the subject temple, in pursuance of entries in the register

4

maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 as well in pursuance of

orders dated 03.09.2015 in W.P.No.28201 of 2015 as illegal and pass

such other order..…”

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the

grandfather of the petitioner by name Venkat Seshaiah constructed the 5

th

respondent temple in the year 1907-08 as can be witnessed the note on the

stone in the temple that his grandfather had performed the Pratista of Lingam.

The other eight temples were constructed by his father and his friends. His

grandfather has donated money and lands for the development of the temple

and also for conducting the festivals. His father constructed Nandiswara

Alayam, Parvathi temple, Navgraha Mandapam, Koneru (pond) by spending

money and also from donations. Till his death, his grandfather was the trustee

of the subject temple and also managed the temple and later the petitioner‟s

father Sri Eswara Sarma taken the responsibilities of the subject temple as

chairman and later, the petitioner managed the temple as trustee. The

petitioner‟s grandfather started Annadanam in the subject temple and the

same is being continued. It is further stated that it is not in dispute that the

petitioner‟s family members have been looking after the affairs of the temple

as hereditary trustee. The proceedings of the 2

nd

respondent i.e.,

D.Dis.No.A6/1196/72/Adm/D/dt.24.10.1973 is very clear on this aspect. The

petitioner was appointed as trustee and chairman of the subject temple by the

Endowments department in the year 1995 along with 4 non -hereditary

trustees. It is further stated that the respondent authorities have not taken any

interest seriously in the interest of subject temple by considering the case of

5

the petitioner as founder trustee and chairman of the subject temple, while

issuing notification Rc.No.A11/5922/2015-GNL, dated 07.08.2015 in

pursuance of notice dated 06.05.2015 of the respondent authorities without

verifying the register extracts made under Section 43 of the A.P.Charitable

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, which itself sufficient

to prove that the entries made there under are final in respect of the hereditary

founder trustees and the same is self sufficient extract for the purpose of

appointment of Founder Trustee and chairman of subject temple. Thus the

respondents have no right in any other manner contradicting the entries made

there under except follow the same unscrupulously. Hence, the present writ

petition came to be filed.

3. This Court, on 30.01.2017, granted interim direction, directing the

second respondent to pass necessary orders on the application submitted by

the petitioner, within a week from that day.

4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2

nd

respondent denying the

allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner herein has

already filed O.A.No.483 of 2011 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, which

is the competent authority to decide whether a person is a founder or a

member from the family of an institution of Endowment under Section 87(1)(h)

of Act 30 of 1987. Though it is a fact the entries in 43 Register was made that

their ancestors were worked as Hereditary Trustees to the subject temple, but

it is also mentioned that it is the villagers version and no authority was

mentioned there under as required under Section 17 of the A.P.Charitable and

6

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act in the said Register.

According to the explanation-1 given under Section 17 of the Act 30 of 1987

and 33 of 2007, it is necessary on the part of the petitioner to prove that the

ancestors of petitioner herein were recognized as Hereditary Trustee under

repealed Act 17/66 to consider his case as Founder Family Member and to

appoint as Trustee and chairman of the subject institution.

It is further stated that the petitioner has initially filed W.P.No.26621 of

2015 and subsequently withdrawn and made his family members to file

another writ in W.P.No.28261 of 2015 with his family members as petitioners

by knowing the fact that „No person shall be as trustee in more than one

Board of Trustes” under Section 17(4) of the Act 30 of 1987 as the petitioner

herein was acting as Trustee in the Board of Trustees in Sri Bramaramba

Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool at the time of

Notification issued for constitution of Trust Board to Sri Vishnunandeeswara

Swamy temple by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P.,

Hyderabad and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 5

th

respondent denying

the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner‟s

ancestors and Family Members might have acted as Trustees to the subject

temple, but not in the capacity of Hereditary Trustee. The family Members of

the petitioner was never appointed as Hereditary Trustees to the subject

institution and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

7

5. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter filed by

the 2

nd

respondent stating that the respondents had intentionally suppressed

the material averments and made some irrelevant issues which would clearly

indicates that they want to avoid the petitioner to be appointed for obvious and

extraneous reasons. The 2nd respondent has given false facts and thereby

trying to mislead this Hon‟ble Court as if he is not belonging to the founder

family member, though the 2nd respondent filed material averments, in which

at page 89 clearly indicates that their ancestors belongs to founder of the

temple and his name also figured at serial No.4.

6. Heard Sri M.V.Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the

respondents.

7. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while

reiterating the contents made in the petition, has placed reliance on a decision

of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in

Prathi Sbbaiah Chetty and others versus Government of Andhra Pradesh

and others

1

, wherein it was held that :

In para-4 of the said Circular, it is stated that if there is no entry with regard to the name of the

founder as contemplated under Section 43(4)(b) of the Act, an application has to be filed

before the Assistant Commissioner to consider the claim and then the Assistant

Commissioner after making an enquiry should make necessary entries. But, it is only a

consequential act pursuant to the appointment of Founder Trustee and in fact it is a sort of

ministerial act and not a statutory function. The statutory function vests in the Deputy

Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act, the procedure whereof is provided under Section

17 of the Act and these provisions are mandatory and, there cannot be any exception to the

same. When the Act names the authority and the manner in which that authority has to

function, it is the basic tenet of interpretation of a statute that such a plain and unambiguous

provision should not be twisted and distorted. It is not out of place to mention that there are

1

2001 SCC OnLine AP 133

8

Rules framed for appointing the Trustees which includes the Founder Trustee titled.

Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 issued in G.O. Ms. No.258 Revenue (Endowments-I),

dated 31-3-1998, which have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection

(3) of Section 17 read with Section 153 of the Act. Under Rule 3, the Assistant Commissioner

has to report to the authority competent to appoint trustees about the vacancy of trustee(s)

and Rule 4 then enables the competent authority to appoint the trustee(s). The Circular

aforementioned has to be interpreted in consonance with the said Rules. The net result is that

the Assistant Commissioner has to notify the vacancy of trustee(s) and then the competent

authority, may be the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner

having regard to the category of institutions mentioned in Section 6(a)(b)(c), has to appoint the

Trustee including Founder Trustee, by making enquiry if there are rival claims, and after

obtaining such finality of appointment of Tmstee(s) including Founder Trustee(s), the Assistant

Commissioner under the aforementioned Circular has to make entries in the Register to be

maintained under Section 43(4)(b) of the Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the above

decision, submits that, the said mandatory procedure have not followed by the

respondents therefore prayed to allow the writ petition while declaring the

action of the respondents as illegal.

9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader opposed for allowing the

writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

10. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the 5

th

respondent submits

that the petitioner‟s ancestors and Family Members might have acted as

Trustees to the subject temple, but not in the capacity of Hereditary Trustee.

The family Members of the petitioner were never appointed as Hereditary

Trustees to the subject institution and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

11. As seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments

Department, Government of A.P., vide Proceedings in Rc.No.D1/6584/2016,

dated 04.04.2016, wherein it was mentioned that :

9

“…The Inspector, Endowments Department, Nandyal is authorized to convene a

special meeting of the Trustees and conduct the election of Chairman of Trust Board as per

rules framed U/s.20 of the Act 30 of 1987. The said Chairman will be acted till Founder Family

Members matter is finalized. After Founder Family Members matter is finalized as per the

orders dt.03.09.2015 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.28261/2015, the Founder

Family Member so declared will be acted as Chairman of the Trust Board. He is also

requested to obtain the affidavits from the newly appointed Trustees dulyattested as required

under the rules framed under Section 19(2) of the Act 30 of 1987.”

12. On a perusal of the order dated 28201 of 2015 dated 3.9.2015,

wherein this Court, while disposing of the writ petition directed the Deputy

Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments department-the 2

nd

respondent

herein to consider the applications of the petitioners to enlistment as members

of the Board of Trustees as per the claim of the petitioners that they belong to

the founder family while appointing the Board of Trustee in consequent to the

notification issued on 7.8.2015.

13. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Section 43(4)(b) of the

Act, an application has to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner to

consider the claim and then the Assistant Commissioner after making an

enquiry should make necessary entries. But, it is only a consequential act

pursuant to the appointment of Founder Trustee and in fact it is a sort of

ministerial act and not a statutory function. The statutory function vests in the

Deputy Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act, the procedure whereof is

provided under Section 17 of the Act and these provisions are mandatory and,

there cannot be any exception to the same. When the Act names the authority

and the manner in which that authority has to function, it is the basic tenet of

interpretation of a statute that such a plain and unambiguous provision should

not be twisted and distorted.

10

14. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 15 (2) and Sections 15,

17 reads as under:

Section 15(2):

As per Section 15(2) of the Act, it is only the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction

is competent to constitute the Board of Trustees consisting of five persons (in the instant case

it was in respect of temple falling under Sec. 6(b)(ii) of the Act). Where as per the

Commissioner's Circular, appointing authority to appoint trustees is only competent to

recognize member of founder's family after causing thorough enquiry, but the enquiry was

conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, such an enquiry was held not to be called as a

thorough enquiry.

Sections 15, 17: The Assistant Commissioner has to notify the vacancies of trustees

and then the competent authority, may be the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy

Commissioner or the Commissioner having regard to the category of institutions mentioned in

Section 6(a)(b)(c) has to appoint the Trustees including the Founder Trustee by making

enquiry. After obtaining the finality of appointment, the Assistant Commissioner has to make

entries in the Register to be maintained under Sec. 43(4)(b) of the Act in accordance with the

Circular No.J5/5288/96 (Act and Rules) dated 25.3.1996 (Prathi‟s case (supra)

Appointment of Board of Trustees to temple. Contention that only the local residents

should be appointed as Trustees is rejected.

15. It is not out of place to mention that there are Rules framed for

appointing the Trustees which includes the Founder Trustee titled.

Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 issued in G.O. Ms. No.258 Revenue

(Endowments-I), dated 31-3-1998, which have been issued in exercise of the

powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 17 read with Section 153 of

the Act. Under Rule 3, the Assistant Commissioner has to report to the

authority competent to appoint trustees about the vacancy of trustee(s) and

Rule 4 then enables the competent authority to appoint the trustee(s). The

Circular aforementioned has to be interpreted in consonance with the said

Rules. The net result is that the Assistant Commissioner has to notify the

vacancy of trustee(s) and then the competent authority, may be the Assistant

Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner having regard to

11

the category of institutions mentioned in Section 6(a)(b)(c), has to appoint the

Trustee including Founder Trustee, by making enquiry if there are rival claims,

and after obtaining such finality of appointment of Trustee(s) including

Founder Trustee(s), the Assistant Commissioner under the aforementioned

Circular has to make entries in the Register to be maintained under Section

43(4)(b) of the Act.

16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the

mandatory procedure as mentioned above having not been followed, this

Court is of the view that, while declaring the action of the respondents in not

appointing the petitioner as Founder Trustee and Chairman of the subject

temple in pursuance of the entries in the register maintained under Section 43

of Act 30 of 1987 as well as in pursuance of orders dated 3.9.1015 in WP

No.28261 of 2015, as illegal and arbitrary.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the concerned

Deputy Commissioner will now take up the matter and make an enquiry by

issuing notice to the petitioners and the 2

nd

respondent and also by publishing

a general notification calling for objections by affording an opportunity to and

pass appropriate orders identifying and appointing the hereditary/founder

trustee of the institution concerned, within a period of four (04) months from

the date of receipt of this order.

12

18. It is made clear that pending such decision by the Deputy

Commissioner concerned, the 2

nd

respondent, who is functioning as on today,

shall continue to function. There shall be no order as to costs.

19. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall

stand closed.

_________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 10 -04-2025

Gvl

13

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITON No.46652 of 2016

Date : .04.2025

Gvl