1

APHC010123782023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3458]

FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 6278/2023

Between:

1. VARANASI SARATH KUMAR, S/O., LATE LAKSHMI SIVA NARAYANA,

AGED 50 YEARS, OCC ARCHAKA,RESIDENT OF UMA MAHESWARA

SWAMIVARI DCVASTHANAM,CHOWTRA CENTER, NEAR OLD

GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHILAKALURIPET TOWN AND MANDAL,

GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

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

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENTS, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

2. THE COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,

GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENT OFFICER, (ASSISTANT

COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARSARAOPET, PALNADU

DISTRICT.

5. SRI UMA MAHESWARA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, (SRI

UMAMAHESWARA AND SRI KANYAKAPARAMESWARI AMMAVARI

TEMPLE), CHOWTRA CENTER, NEAR OLD GOVERNMENT

HOSPITAL, CHILAKALURIPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU

DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SINGLE TRUSTEE/EXECUTIVE

OFFICER.

6. SRI VASAVI KANYAKA PARAMESWARI DHARMA SANGHAM,

2

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR.P.VENKATA SURYA

PRAKASA RAO, S/O., VENKATESWARLU, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,

CHILAKALURIPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.

...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 topleased to issue a Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus

declaring the a)action of the 3rd Respondent in so far as recommending to the

2nd Respondent through Lr.in Rc.No.A1/ENDW-NADM/5/2023 dt.07-01-2023

recognizing Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru which is the part of the 5th

Respondent Devasthanam/Temple, treating separately as Sri

KanyakaparameswariAmmavari Temple under independent management of

the 6th Respondent and the 2nd Respondent through proceedings

R.Dis.No.D3/COE 14021 (42) /10/2022 dt.22-02-2023 granting exemption to

the 6th Respondent from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 except section 80 in

terms of G.O.Ms.No.306, Rev(Endts-II), Dept, dt.05-11-2021. b)the action of

the Respondent No.6 in forcibly taking the premises key of .Sri

Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru. from the Petitioner upon the oral

instructions of the 2nd respondent and in the presence of the Executive

Officer of the 5th Respondent on 13-03-2023 on the premise of the

proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dt.22-02-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, without

jurisdiciton and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart

from being violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the

proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents dt.07-01- 2023 and 22-02-2023

respectively in so far as recognizing .Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru.

which is the part of the 5th Respondent Devasthanam/Temple, treating

separately as Sri KanyakaparameswariAmmavari Temple under independent

management of the 6th Respondent and granting exemption to the 6th

Respondent from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu

Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 except section 80 in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.306, Rev(Endts-II), Dept, dt.05- 11-2021 and consequently direct

the Respondents not to interfere with the Archaka Services being rendered by

the Petitioner to the Deities and Sub-Deities including .Sri Vasavi

Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru. as well in the premises of 5th Respondent

Devasthanam/Temple and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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

pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith process and release the

pending bills of 1) Rs. 7,90,219/- for Removal of Water Hyacinth and Desilting

3

of Irrigation Cum Yellavakatava near Kothapalli Village limits in T.P.Gudur

Mandal of SPSR Nellore District 2) Rs.9,05,972/- for Removal of Weed and

Sholes to channel Allipuram load Regulator to Kodur tank in T.P. Gudur

mandal of SPSR District 3) Rs.4,71,074/- for Removal of Water Hyacinth of

Bandepalli Branch Canal in manubolu Mandal of SPSR Nellore District 4)

Rs.17,49,871/- for Removal of water Hyacinth of Kanupur Main Canal from

Km.0.000 to Km 11.000 Kanupur Main Canal in Podalkur Mandal of SPSR

Nellore, 5) Rs.11,51,885/- for Removal of water Hyacinth of thikkavarapadu

Branch Canal from Km.3,900 to Km.17.490 in Venkatachalam Mandal of

SPSR Nellore District, 6)Rs.9,39,174/- for Removal of water hyacinth of

Kanupur Main Canal from Km 35.600 to Km 55.000 in Venkatachalam Mandal

of SPSR Nellore District, 7) Rs.8,31,395/- for Removal of weed (Water

Hyacinth) and desilting of off Take channel of Mogallagandi Anicut in

Manubolu Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, 8) Rs.3,76,581/- for Desilting of

bangaramma Tank Supply Channel of L.N.Puram village in Manubolu Mandal

of SPSR Nellore District, 9) Rs.5,16,524/- for Removal of weed and desilting

of R/ s off Take channel near Mekapothulagandi in Manubolu mandal of SPSR

Nellore District 10) Rs. 1,67,537/- for Removal of Weed of Vinuvuru village

limits of Podalkur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, 11) Rs.1,25,870/- for

removal of weed of Surayapalem branch channel in Surayapalem village limits

of Podalakur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, 12) Rs. 4,66,999/- for removal

of weed of viruvuru River branch Channel from Km.0.000 to Km 8.460 in

Chejarla Mandal of SPSR Nellore District and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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

pleased to pass an Order to STAY of all the further proceedings in the

Impugned Crl M.P. No. 73/2022 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Court at Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main Writ Petition in the

interest of the justice and to pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

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

Pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition

in the above writ petition and pass

IA NO: 4 OF 2023

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

Pleased to vacate the Interim orders passed in IA No. 2/2023 in WP No.

6278/2023 dated 15-03-2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

4

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V V N NARASIMHAM

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

3. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments

WRIT PETITION NO: 15869/2022

Between:

1. VARANASI SARATH KUMAR, S/O., LATE LAKSHMI SIVA NARAYANA,

AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. ARCHAKA, RESIDENT OF UMA

MAHESWARA SWAMIVARI DEVASTHANAM, CHOWTRA CENTER,

NEAR OLD GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHILAKALURIPET TOWN

AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

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

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENTS, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

2. THE COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT

OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY AT

KOTHAPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. SRI UMA MAHESWARA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, CHOWTRA

CENTER, NEAR OLD GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHILAKALURIPET

TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS

SINGLE TRUSTEE/EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

5. SRI VASAVI KANYAKA PARAMESWARI ARYA VYSYA SANGHAM,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.RACHUMULLU

SURYARAO, S/O., LATE RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY, RESIDENT OF

D.NO.6-172, VASAVI NAGAR, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

6. MR KOPPURAVURI NAGESWARA RAO PATEL, PRESIDENT ARYA

VYSYA SANGHAM, CHILAKALURIPET, S/O., LATE NAGABHUSHANA

RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.22 -181, MADDI

5

MALLAIAH STREET, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHILAKALURIPET, URBAN POLICE

STATION, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

8. CHILAKALURIPET MUNICIPALITY, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR

DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

...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 topleased to issue a Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus

declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.2 and 3 in protecting the

property of the 4th Respondent Devasthanam by preventing the unauthorized

activities of the 5th Respondent in the Mandapam at Sri Uma Maheswara

Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Chowtra Centra, Chilakaluripet Town and Mandal,

Guntur District, thereby depriving the Archaka residential Quarter to the

Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the

Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice

and consequently direct the Respondents 2and 3 to forthwith take control of

the Mandapam being under unauthorized control of the 5th Respondent

situated in the 4th Respondent Devasthanam premises and facilitate for

construction of Archaka Quarter by the Petitioner and also to recover the

income derived so far by the 5th respondent through the unauthorized use of

the Mandapam and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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

pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to prevent the unauthorized activities

of the 5th Respondent in the Mandapam at Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy Vari

Devasthanam, Chowtra Centra, Chilakaluripet Town & Mandal, Guntur District,

pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities

2. V V N NARASIMHAM

3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

4. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments

6

5. VENKATESWARLU KOLLA

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments,Smt. Anne Devi

Subhashini, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments ,

Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the respondent No.6

(W.P.No.6278 of 2023), Sri V.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Sri Kolla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5& 6

(W.P.No.15869 of 2022), Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing

Counsel for Municipalities.

2. The issue in both the writ petitions is common; therefore, the writ

petitions are disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of

convenience, the parties as arrayed inW.P.No.6278 of 2023 are taken for

reference.

3. Challenge in the Writ PetitionNo.6278 of 2023 is to the

proceedings of the 3

rd

respondent making a recommendation to the

2

nd

respondent to grant exemption to the 6

th

respondent Sangham, from the

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions

and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), in terms of the provisions of

the G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021.

W.P.No.15869 of 2022 is filed for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to

take control of the Mandapam which is under unauthorized control of the

6

th

respondent and facilitate the petitioner to construct the quarters.

7

4. It is contended that the petitioner is an Archaka of the

5

th

respondent - temple. Prior to the petitioner, his father and forefathers were

rendering services to the 5

th

respondent - temple.

5. It is contended that in 1764 AD, the then Zamindar

Sri Rajamanuri Peda Venkata Krishnarao, donated an extent of Ac.0.50 cents

of land for the construction of the 5

th

respondent's temple, Sri Uma

Maheshwara Swamy Vari Temple. In 1922, a survey was conducted by the

Government to demarcate the boundaries of the property. In 1948, the then

successor to the Zamindar family, late Manuri Venkata Narayana, granted

permission to the petitioner's grandfather, who was Archaka to construct a

house on the southern side of the temple and reside in the second house.

Although permission was granted to construct the house, they were unable to

do so and have been living in a tin shed. In 1971, members of the Arya Vysya

Community formed the 6

th

respondent Sangham and constructed a Mandapam

on the southern side of the temple, naming it Gnana Mandir, where the

petitioner's forefather was allowed to construct a house for residential

purposes. The said Mandapam was put to misuse by the members of the

6

th

respondent. The petitioner's father had requested permission to construct a

house on the first floor of the Mandapam. The 4

th

respondent had

recommended the 2

nd

respondent for the grant of permission to the petitioner

to construct the house. However, there has been no action on the petitioner’s

representations seeking permission to construct a house. The learned counsel

for the petitioner contends that the Mandapam is being used by the Members

8

of the 6

th

respondent for commercial purposes and that they derive income

from it. Without granting the permission to the petitioner, the respondents

have, however, allowed the 6

th

respondent to construct a commercial complex

on top of the Mandapam. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner filed

a writ petition in W.P.No.15869 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondent

to prevent unauthorized activities of the Arya Vysya Sangham.

6. It is contented that the 5

th

respondent temple i.e., Sri Uma

Maheswara Swami is the main deity and the other deities,

i.e., Subrahmanyeswara Swamy, Vigneswara Swamy, Kalabhairava Swamy,

and Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavaru,etc., are sub-deities. These are

under the single trustee's administrative control. The learned counsel for the

petitioner further contends that Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavaru is

a sub-deity and is not an independently recognized temple. And the petitioner

is not under the control of the 6

th

respondent. Additionally, he is rendering

archaka service to the 5

th

respondent templeas well as to all other deities

located in the premises.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

vide the impugned proceedings, exemption has been granted to the

6

th

respondent in terms of G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II) Department,

dated 05.11.2021. It is contented that the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari

Ammavaru, being the sub-deity located in the premises of the 5

th

respondent,

is not an independent temple under the management of the 6

th

respondent;

therefore, granting exemption to the 6

th

respondent under G.O.Ms.No.306,

9

Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021 is without jurisdiction,

having regard to the fact that the subject 5

th

respondent temple is published

under Section 6c(ii) of the Act with the main deity being Sri Uma Maheswara

Swamy. If the 6

th

respondent is allowed to handle the affairs of Sri Vasavi

Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple, it would lead to serious lapses. The

impugned proceedings would recognize Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari

Ammavari temple as an independent temple whereas it is a sub-deity of the

main 5

th

respondent temple. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II)

Department, dated 05.11.2021, would not apply to the Sri Uma Maheswara

Swamy Temple. It is vehemently argued that the impugned proceedings

would lead to the recognition of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari

Temple as an independent temple, which, on the other hand, is a sub-deity of

the main temple, Sri Uma Maheshwari Swamy Temple. The petitioner's

contention is that the Sri Uma Maheshwari Swamy Temple was established in

the 18

th

century. The Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple was

established in 1959, and renovations were made in 1970.It is further

contended that, from the beginning, all the temples were under one

independent temple. It is only after the 6

th

respondent temple came into the

picture that efforts are being made to recognize the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka

Parameswari Ammavari Temple as a different temple from the

5

th

respondent temple. Thus, seeks set aside of the impugned proceedings.

8. The Commissioner of Endowments, the 2

nd

respondent, filed

counter affidavit stating that both the temples i.e., Sri Uma Maheswari Swamy

10

temple and Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple are not one

and the same, both of them are distinct and separate. After establishment of

Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple in 1905, adjacent to the

5

th

respondent temple, the 6

th

respondent Sangham established in 1941, the

maintenance of the temple was entrusted to the 6

th

respondent Sangham and

Sangham alone is maintaining the temple. On the request of the petitioner,

the 6

th

respondent has allowed the petitioner to perform pujas in Sri

VasaviKanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple on payment of consolidated

wages. The petitioner is performing archakatvam at 5

th

respondent temple

and is enjoying the land of Ac.10.00 cents endowed by Zamindars in favour of

the temple. The endowment authorities have never appointed the petitioner

as poojari in Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple. It is further

stated that the 5

th

respondent temple and Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari

Ammavari Temple are being managed and administered separately and there

is no commonness in them. The proceedings of the 2

nd

respondent granting

exemption to the 6

th

respondent are valid and the petitioner has no locus to

challenge the same.

9. The 5

th

respondent filed its counter, contending that the Archakas

of the 5

th

respondent temple are using the Archaka quarter situated on

northern side of the temple. The 6

th

respondent Sangham constructed a

mandapam long ago in the premises of the temple on southern side and had

been using it for religious discourses. AndSri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari

Ammavari temple was constructed long ago, more than a century back in the

11

premises of 5

th

respondent. The temple was initially managed by founders of

the said temple. Thereafter, it is being managed by the 6

th

respondent with

their own funds. The day to day expenditure of the temple including

thesalaries are being managed by the 6

th

respondent by obtaining specific

budget sanction from 3

rd

respondent every year. That is further stated that the

proceedings under Section 43 of the Act are also passed separately there is a

separate register being maintained under Section 43 of the Act in respect of

the properties of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple. It is

stated that the fact of separate registration of the temple under Section 43 of

the Act recognizes the existence of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari

Ammavari temple as independent temple and is not concerned with the

5

th

respondent.On the issue of grant of exemption to 6

th

respondent temple by

the 2

nd

respondent, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the said

proceedings. It is further reiterated that the 5

th

respondent temple and

Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple are both two independent

temples having two separate registrations under Section 43 of the Act.

10. The 6

th

respondent filed its counter, contending that in 1905, the

Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple was constructed. In 1957,

there was a renovation, and the subject temple is separate from the

5

th

respondent temple. It is further contended that the writ petitioner went to

the extent of making uncharitable comments against the deity in that

connection, a crime was also registered against the petitioner by the police.

The petitioner has no vested right to seek the enforcement of his right to

12

render pujas and sevas in the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari

temple. It is contended that the petitioner has no jurisdiction to challenge the

proceedings of the 2

nd

respondent. It is thus contented that the

5

th

respondent temple is separate from the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari

Ammavari Temple. Temple is under the management of the

6

th

respondent for the last 100 years. In respect of the exemption granted by

the Government to the 6

th

respondent, the petitioner should not have any

grievance andhe has no locus to challenge the same.

11. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 2

nd

respondent has been filed in

W.P.No.15869 of 2022, wherein it has been stated that the occupation of the

Kalyanamandapam by the 6

th

respondent Sangham is unauthorized and steps

are being taken to evict the Sangham from the encroachment of the temple

property in accordance with the procedure.

12. The learned Senior Counsel Sri V.Venugopal appearing for

Sri Kolla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6

(W.P.No.15869 of 2022), in support of his contentions, relies on the judgment

of this Court in W.P.Nos.9002 of 2025, 18777 of 2015, 18109 of 2018 and

16359 of 2023.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written

submissions titled “Note on Arguments”.

The gist of the same are:

13

“6. CONCLUSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT PETITIONER

1. Admittedly both the Gyana Mandiram (MANDAPAM) and Sri

Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru are located within the TEMPLE

premises.

2. When it is found by the Endowment Authorities that the control of the

SANGAM over Gyana mandiram (MANDAPAM) situated within the

TEMPLE Premises is illegal and unauthorized and steps are being taken

to evict the SANGAM from the MANDAPAM, it is not know how the

Authorities are justifying calling Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru as a

separate temple, located on the side of the main deity Sri Uma

Maheswara Swamy where Parvathi Ammavaru is on the other side and all

the three Deities are located in a common mandapam, single

dwajastambham and only one entrance;

3. When the occupation of SANGAM over Gyana Mandiram is illegal, the

independent claim of SANGAM over Sir Kanyakaparameswari

Ammavaru, both located within the TEMPLE property is equally illegal.

4. The TEMPLE that was notified under section 6(c)(ii) of the

Endowments Act consists of all the deities including utsava mandapams,

appurtenant structures and land as defined at section 2(27) of the

Endowments Act.

5. Thus even if the SANGAM contributes for construction of Sri

KanyakaparameswariAmmaru in the TEMPLE premise as the part of its

Religious Charity as defined at section 2(21) of the Act, the SANGAM will

not get any right or control over the same and cannot call it as an

independent temple.

6. Section 145 of the AP Endowment Act 1987 recognizes only adoption

or amalgamation of notified institutions, but not for partition of the Deities.

7. Even from the perusal of the Section 43 Register submitted by the

SANGAM, it only discloses about the Religious charity activities that was

said to have undertaken by it at the TEMPLE premises for Sri

Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru. But that does not create any

independent right for the SAMGAM over the charity it haveundertake

even if it is admitted.

8. The said Section 43 Register of the SANGAM clearly mentions about

the properties of the SANGAM where Sri Kanyakaparameswari

Ammavaru is not found . The details of Sri

14

KanyakaparameswariAmmavaru are mentioned as its Religious Charity

activities, which itself is clear that the assets of SANGAMis different and

its Religious charity is different. Thus mere mentioning about the religious

charity activities undertaken by the SANGAM at TEMPLE premises will

not entitle the SANGAM to claim right over Sri Kanyakaparameswari

Ammavaru located within the TEMPLE premises.

9. If the said proposition that, those who undertake Religious charity

at a notified TEMPLE would be given Right and Control over the said

TEMPLE to the extent it undertakes Religious Charity, is accepted,

those rich Devotees / charitable institutions will get right over the

notified TEMPLES in the State to the extent of charitable activity

they undertake, which the AP Endowments Act No.30 of 1987 never

provided for.

10. Petitioner being the Archaka was permitted to enjoy the benefits over

the land during the life time of his father, the said land was also under

unauthorized occupation of third parties. The Endowment authorities

though aware of the said fact has not taken any steps for eviction and did

not conducted auction of lease hold rights till today.

11. The petitioner is working as Archaka since the year 1986 at the

TEMPLE performing poojas and other religious services to all the deities

including Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavaru.

12. The petitioner who is residing in the TEMPLE premises has every

right to construct quarter to reside with the permission of the departmental

authorities.

13. Since the petitioner questioned the unauthorized acts of the

SANGAM in proposing to illegally construct additional flour over the

GyariaMandiram, the dispute started.

14. Till then there was no dispute and no complaint was made against

him with regard to his services.

15. The petitioner being the Archaka cannot be deprived of his right to do

services to all the Deities in the TEMPLE premises and to reside in the

TEMPLE premises by constructing residential quarter with the permission

of the Authorities.

16. The Endowment Authorities having found that the occupation of

Gyana Mandiram by the SANGAM in the TEMPLE premises is

unauthorized and illegal, in the same analogy independent claim of

15

SANGAM in the TEMPLE premises in respect of Sri

Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru is also equally illegal and unauthorized.”

14. Considered the submissions.

15. The challenge in the writ petition No.6278 of 2023 is to the

proceedings of the 2

nd

respondent granting exemption to the

6

th

respondent from the provisions of the Act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.306 dated

05.11.2021.

16. The petitioner one hand claims that the Sangham permitted him

to construct of a residential quarter on the first floor of the Mandapam having

granted such a permission cannot make use of the building for its use by

making further constructions in breach of the promise made to him depriving

him from making a residential quarter.On the other hand, it is also contended

that the Sangham is unlawfully occupying property (Mandapam) owned by the

5

th

respondent temple.This Court is of the view that the petitioner who is

Archaka of 5

th

respondent temple has no locus to challenge the exemption

granted to the 6

th

respondent Sangham, hence cannot maintain the writ

petition.

17. If the petitioner is claiming any right for construction of the

residential quarter within the premises of the temple, placing reliance on the

proceedings or grants issued in the year 1922, the same will have no

enforceability, having regard to the provisions of Sections 34 and 144 of the

Act. The endowment authorities in their counter affidavit have stated that the

16

appropriate proceedings would be initiated against the 6

th

respondent in

accordance with the procedure under the Act. After filing of the said counter

affidavit, the impugned proceedings (W.P.No.6278 of 2023) have been passed

granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of the Act.

18. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no

locus to challenge the proceedings issued in favour of the 6

th

respondent.

Reliance in this regard is placed on a common order passed by me in similar

circumstances in W.P.Nos.9002 of 2025, 18777 of 2015, 18109 of 2018 and

16359 of 2023.

19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________

JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date:02.01.2026

ANI

17

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION Nos.6278 of 2023 & 15869 of 2022

Date:02.01.2026

ANI