Date of reserved for orders : 15.09.2026

Date of pronouncement : 16.10.2026

Date of uploading : 16.10.2026

APHC010873152018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3333]

FRIDAY, THE 16

th

DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 42250/2018

Between:

1. PUJARI KESAVACHARY, S/O SANJEEVAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS,

OCC. PUJARI, R/O SALKAPURAM VILLAGE, KALLURU MANDAL,

KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P

2. PUJARI RUKMANGADA, S/O L ATE BHEEMAIAH, AGED 23 YEARS,

OCC. TEMPLE PRIEST, R/O SALKAPURAM VILLAGE, KALLURU

MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P

3. PUJARI VIDYAVATHI, W/O LATE BHEEMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS,

OCC. TEMPLE PRIEST, R/O SALKAPURAM VILLAGE, KALLURU

MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT

2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

MAGISTARTE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL

2

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFI CER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL

DISTRICT.

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, KURNOOL,

KURNOOL DISTRCIT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased toto issue an appropriate writ or direction or order more particularly

one in the nature of Certiorary be issued calling for the records of the case

wide proceedings no. RDis/C/ 1301/2014 on the file of the Revenue Divisional

Officer Kurnool dt 18.12.2015 and vide file no. D5/1365/2017 on the file of the

Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool, and declaring the

order of the Joint Collector dated 26-05-2018 as illegal, viod and arbitran and

set a side the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to

cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the 4th

Respondent with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.15.01 Cents in Sy.No.71

of Salkapuram Village, Kalluru Mandal, Kurnool Dist., and direct the

respondents to issue the pattadhar pass books and title deeds in favour of the

petitioners and pass

IA 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 order dated 26-05-2018, vide file no. D5/1365/2017 on file of the

Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool in respect of the

land admeasring Ac. 15.1 cents in Sy.no.71 of Salkapuram Village, Kalluru

Village, Kurnool district pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal

of the above writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

3

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

The Court made the following:

4

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, seeking the following prayer:

―…to issue an appropriate writ or direction or order

more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari be

issued calling for the records of the case wide

proceedings no. RDis/C/ 1301/2014 on the file of the

Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool dt 18.12.2015

and vide file no. D5/1365/2017 on the file of the Joint

Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool,

and declaring the order of the Joint Collector dated

26-05-2018 as illegal, void and arbitrary and set

aside the same with a consequential direction to the

respondents to cancel the pattadar pass books and

title deeds issued in favour of the 4

th

Respondent

with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.15.01 Cents

in Sy.No.71 of Salkapuram Village, Kalluru Mandal,

Kurnool Dist., and direct the respondents to issue

the pattadhar pass books and title deeds in favour of

the petitioners and pass…‖

2. Brief facts of the case are that the land admeasuring Acs.15.01

cents in Survey No. 71 of Salkapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District

was possessed and enjoyed by late Pujari Venkata Chalamaiah since time

immemorial. Upon his demise, the land devolved to his son Hanumaiah, and

subsequently to Hanumaiah's son Kesavaiah. Kesavaiah had two sons,

Ananthaiah and Sanjeevaiah amongst whom, the said property got

partitioned, holding 7.50 acres and 7.51 acres respectively. Sanjeevaiah‘s

5

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

portion was inherited by his son Pujari Kesava Chari i.e., the 1

st

petitioner

herein, while Ananthaiah‘s share passed to his son Pujari Bheemaiah and

later to Bheemaiah‘s legal representatives, who are petitioner Nos.2 and 3

herein.

3. Based on their continuous uninterrupted possession, the

petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Kallur, for the issuance of Pattadar

passbooks and title deeds. Although the Tahsildar acknowledged their long-

standing occupation, he refused to issue passbooks to them and instead

granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds pertaining to the subject property

to the 4

th

respondent – Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool,

classifying the property as Devadaya Inam land. Aggrieved by such issuance

of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the petitioner preferred an appeal

before the 3

rd

respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool district which

was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2007 confirming the issuance of

pattadar passbooks in favour of 4

th

respondent-Assistant Commissioner,

Endowments, Kurnool district. The said dismissal order was challenged before

the 2

nd

respondent-Joint Collector by way of a Revision petition, which was

also dismissed, confirming the order passed by the 3

rd

respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer, vide R.C.D5/2927/2007, dated 23.10.2008.

6

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

4. Challenging the order passed by the 2

nd

respondent-Joint

Collector, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14543 of 2009 before this Court, which

was disposed of on 04.12.2014 as under:

―…The proceedings dated 22.07.2007 of the 2nd

respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, as

confirmed by proceedings of 1st respondent – Joint

Collector dated 23.10.2008, are set aside and the

matter is remanded to the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Kurnool District for fresh enquiry and for

passing appropriate orders in accordance with the

Act. The representation given by the petitioners

before the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional

Officer, Kolluru Mandal, which resulted in sending

the report dated 28.05.2006, can be considered as

an appeal filed under the Act, after issuing notice to

the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Kurnool

and appropriate orders are passed. All the issues

between the petitioners and the Endowments

Department are left open for consideration by the

2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer,

Kurnool District, for decision in the appeal on

remand.‖

5. Pursuant to the abovementioned directions, the 3

rd

respondent-

Revenue Divisional Officer took up the remanded proceedings

(R.Dis.C.1301/2014), and passed another order 18.12.2015, once again

rejecting the petitioners' request. The 3

rd

respondent concluded that primary

revenue records—including the RSR, 10/1 Account, Inam B Register, and the

1956 District Gazette—establish that the subject land was Devadaya Inam

belonging to the deity Sri Chennakesava Swamy. The 3

rd

respondent further

7

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

observed that the petitioners and the names of their predecessors were

recorded in the possessor column only in the capacity of "Devasthanam

Nowkari" (temple servants/Archakas) enjoying the land in lieu of

remuneration, which did not confer absolute ownership rights. Aggrieved by

the order dated 18.12.2015, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before

the 2

nd

respondent vide Rc.D5/1365/2017, which was also dismissed by way

of the impugned order dated 26.05.2018 by upholding the decision of the 3

rd

respondent. In the impugned order, the Joint Collector relied on the Inam

Abolition (Amendment) Act No. 16 of 2013, wherein Section 4 of Act No.37 of

1956 was amended with retrospective effect from 26.11.1956. Under Section

4(4) of the amended Act, service Inam lands burdened with religious services

belong exclusively to the religious institution, rendering Archakas ineligible to

claim Ryotwari Pattas or ownership passbooks beyond cultivating the land as

remuneration for performing temple rituals. Aggrieved by the order dated

26.05.2018, this writ petition is filed.

6. The 2

nd

respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit admitting the

facts that led to filing of the writ petition, it was further contended that as per

the Inam Abolition (Amendment Act) Act No.16 of 2013, the archakas/enjoyers

are not eligible to claim right over the land. In the instant case, as of now, the

petitioners being the archakas of the deity are in possession of the lands to

perform usual pujas and archana and as remuneration towards their service to

8

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

the deity, the lands are kept in their possession and they take the yield from

the land, but not as owner. It is further contended that according to RSR, the

subject land is classified as Inam Dry land and meant for temple service;

further, in the Inam B-Register also, the land in Sy.No.71 of Salkapuram villge

is classified as devadayam inam land. As such, the petitioners are not eligible

to be issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The names of the petitioners

are entered in adangal as enjoyers, but, the pattadar holder is the deity

Chenna Keshava Swamy. It is further stated that the 2

nd

respondent has

rightly passed the impugned order, which requires not interference by this

Court, hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

7. The 4

th

respondent – Assistant Commissioner of the Endowments

Department filed a counter affidavit contending that an extent of Acs.15.01

cents of land in Survey No.71 belongs to the temple deity, Sri Chennakesava

Swamy, rather than its priests. The priests are permitted to cultivate and use

the land solely as compensation for performing their daily religious services at

the temple. Merely because the petitioners are caretakers and are using the

land in place of a cash salary, they hold no legal right to claim ownership of

the property. The relevant re-settlement register and pahani documents,

explicitly classify the property as temple land ("Devadayam"), listing the deity

as the legal landholder ("Pattadar") and the priests as temple employees

("Devasthanam Nowkari"). Based on the said entries, the Tahsildar and

9

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have repeatedly reviewed the case and rejected the

request of the petitioners for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

Furthermore, it is contended that the 2013 amendments to the Inam Abolition

Act, legally declare that all service lands belong exclusively to religious

institutions, making any ownership titles granted to individuals automatically

invalid. The petitioners are only entitled to remain on the land while actively

fulfilling their temple duties. As per the said act, if the petitioners stop

performing services or try to claim the property as if it is their own, they would

be considered encroachers and will be subject to eviction. Hence, requested

to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Heard Sri. K. Ratanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments.

9. Perused the entire material available on record. The principal

issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim

ryotwari pattas and consequential pattadar

passbooks and title deeds in respect of the land

admeasuring Acs.15.01 cents in Survey No.71 of

Salkapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool

District, notwithstanding its classification as

Devadayam Inam in the revenue records?”

10. The case of the petitioners is that the subject land has been in

the possession and enjoyment of their ancestors for several decades and that

10

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

the petitioners have succeeded to their respective shares through inheritance.

The claim of the petitioners, for issuance of patta has been rejected by the

revenue authorities primarily on the ground that the subject land is classified

as Devadayam Inam and that the name of the deity, Sri Chennakesava

Swamy, is recorded as the pattadar, whereas the petitioners and their

predecessors are shown as enjoyers in the capacity of ‗Devasthanam

Nowkari‘.

11. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vallabharana Swami Varu (Deity)

v. Devi Hanumacharyulu and Others

1

. In the said decision, the Court

examined the nature of a temple-service inam with reference to the entries in

the Inam Fair Register, the recommendations recorded therein and the

original inam title deed. The Court held that the mere description of an inam

as Devadayam or Pagoda Inam does not, by itself, establish that the grant

was made in favour of the deity. The nature of the grant has to be determined

by examining the relevant documents in their entirety, particularly the terms of

the original grant and the identity of the grantee. The principle emerging from

the above decision is that the character of an inam cannot be determined

merely by relying upon the nomenclature employed in the revenue records.

1

AIR 1969 AP 392

11

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

The material question is whether the grant was made to the religious

institution or to an individual, subject to the obligation of rendering service to

the institution. Where the grant is established to have been made to an

individual and his successors, burdened with the performance of religious

service, the mere description of the land as Devadayam Inam in the revenue

records would not, by itself, establish the title of the deity.

12. In the case on hand, on a perusal of the documents relied upon

by the petitioners, it can be seen that the land admeasuring Acs.15.01 cents in

Sy.No.71 stands in the name of Poojari Venkata Chalamaiah, who is the

ancestor of the petitioners and under Column 16 of the RSR of Salkapuram

village, Kallur mandal, in the remarks columns, the words ‗temple service‘ is

mentioned. The said land is classified as Inam dry as per the resettlement

register. Further, as per the adangal in respect of the land in question, the

name of ‗Sri Chennakeshavaswamy‘ was recorded as pattadar and the names

of Sri. P. Ananthaiah and Sri. Sanjeevaiah were recorded as possessors, who

admittedly are the immediate ancestors of the petitioners herein. As per the B-

Register, the description of the subject land is mentioned as Devadayam. In

support of their case, the petitioners furnished a copy of 1-B Register

pertaining to the subject land wherein, the name of ‗Pujari Kesavaiah‘ was

mentioned as the owner and possessor of the subject property, who is the

grandfather of the 1

st

petitioner herein. Furthermore, on a request made by

12

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

the petitioners for furnishing record of rights of Kallur mandal, Salkapuram

village, pertaining to lands in Sy.No.71, admeasuring Acs.15.01 cents, the 3

rd

respondent addressed a letter to the District Collector and District Magistrate,

Kurnool vide letter bearing No.Rc.F.630/06, dated 28.01.2007 who in turn

informed the 3

rd

respondent that the details pertaining to the subject land are

not available in the Inam Fair Register.

13. The nomenclature ―Devadayam‖ in the B-Register, and the entry

―temple service‖ in the RSR, cannot by itself establish that the original grant

was made to the deity Sri Chennakesava Swamy. As held in Vallabharana

Swami Varu (Deity) v. Devi Hanumacharyulu and Others, the character of

an inam must be determined from the original grant, the inam title deed, the

recommendations in the Inam Fair Register and the surrounding

circumstances, and not merely from the label used in the revenue records.

14. It is pertinent to note that, in response to the request made by the

petitioners for furnishing the Record of Rights pertaining to the land

admeasuring Acs.15.01 cents in Sy.No.71 of Salkapuram Village, Kallur

Mandal, the 3

rd

respondent, vide letter bearing Rc.F.630/06, dated

28.01.2007, addressed the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool,

and was informed that the particulars pertaining to the subject land were not

available in the Inam Fair Register. In the absence of the relevant entries in

the Inam Fair Register, the respondents cannot place reliance on the said

13

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

register to establish their contention regarding the nature and character of the

subject land, without producing any supporting record and contend that the

subject land was originally granted in favour of the deity, Sri Chennakesava

Swamy, or to the temple itself basing on the revenue entires. Rebutting the

same, the petitioners have placed reliance on a copy of the 1-B Register,

wherein the name of Pujari Kesavaiah, the grandfather of the 1

st

petitioner, is

recorded as the owner and possessor of the subject land . In such

circumstances, the said revenue entry cannot be brushed aside, particularly

when the respondents have not produced the relevant Inam Fair Register.

15. It is well settled that the expression ―Devadayam‖ only denotes

that the inam was connected with a religious purpose; it does not establish

that the land was endowed to the deity or that the temple became the owner

thereof. The burden squarely lies upon the respondents, who contend that the

title of the subject property lies in favour of the deity. In the absence of such

crucial and primary material, the respondents‘ contention that the land belongs

to the deity is based merely on inference and presumption drawn from the

nomenclature used in the revenue records. The classification of the land as

―Devadayam Inam‖ cannot, therefore, be treated as conclusive proof of the

deity‘s title, nor it can be used to deny the claim of the petitioners for grant of

ryotwari pattas and consequential pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

14

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

16. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo

dated 30.07.2026, furnishing a copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner,

Endowments department, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada bearing

Rc.No.M1/19025(35)/3/2019, dated 27.09.2021 passed under similar

circumstances. A perusal of the said proceedings would disclose that one Ch.

Chinna Venkateswarlu requested to delete the land admeasuring Acs.1.18

cents situated in Sy.No.59 of Mamidalapadu village, Kurnool mandal and

district from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the

Registration Act, 1908. It was observed in the said proceedings that the nature

of the said land in R.S.R., is mentioned as Inam and not service inam; that the

name of the temple ‗Sri Lingamaiah Swamy Temple‘ is not mentioned; that in

the remarks column, besides the word temple service, ‗Devasthanam Nowkari‘

is mentioned. Thus, the Commissioner did not consider it as a temple service

inam land and accordingly, directed deletion of the said property from

prohibited properties list under Section 22 (A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act.

The facts in the said proceedings are similar to the facts of the case on hand.

Even in the present case, the petitioners also rely upon the entries in the

revenue records, including the 1-B Register, wherein the name of Pujari

Kesavaiah, the grandfather of the 1

st

petitioner, is recorded.

17. Admittedly, the land has been in the continuous possession,

cultivation, and enjoyment of the petitioners‘ ancestors and has thereafter

15

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

devolved upon the petitioners by succession. It can therefore affirmatively be

held that the mere use of the expressions ―Devadayam‖ or ―Devasthanam

Nowkari‖ in the revenue records is not decisive of the true nature of the grant.

They do not conclusively establish that the land was granted to the deity itself.

The nature and character of the inam must be determined with reference to

the original grant, the inam title deed, the Inam Fair Register, and other

contemporaneous records, and not merely on the basis of the nomenclature

employed in the revenue entries. Applying the settled principles laid down in

Vallabharana Swami Varu (Deity) v. Devi Hanumacharyulu, wherein it was

held that an inam described as ―Devadayam‖ or ―Pagoda inam‖ is found to

have been granted to a named individual and his successors, subject to the

performance of temple service, the grant must be treated as a personal inam

burdened with service and not as an endowment belonging to the deity. It was

further held that in such a case, the service-holder and his heirs are entitled to

hold and enjoy the land so long as the service is performed, and the temple or

deity cannot claim absolute ownership or seek recovery of possession merely

by relying upon the description ―Devadayam.‖

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the proceedings dated

18.12.2015 of the 3

rd

respondent and the consequential proceedings dated

26.05.2018 of the 2

nd

respondent are liable to be set-aside.

16

VS,J

W.P.No.42250 of 2018

19. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition

shall stand closed.

_____________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date:16.10.2026

Gss