Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Kamalapuram, Mudigonda mandal, Khammam district V. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Khammam and Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad

WP/21037/2003

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by the hereditary Archaka of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, challenging the auction of temple lands by the temple authorities. The petitioner argued that their family had historically managed the temple and its lands, receiving the produce as remuneration. The temple authorities, backed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, contested the petitioner's claims, citing mismanagement and unauthorized leasing of the lands. The court examined the legal framework provided by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, particularly focusing on the abolition of hereditary rights and the specific provisions protecting the lands of 6(c) temples. The Supreme Court's directives in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh were also considered, emphasizing the need for a scheme to support Archakas, which had not been implemented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 806032 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Article 19 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Endowments Act; Legal rights; Writ of Mandamus; Hereditary Archaka; Temple Land Auction; Public Auction Notification
• Section: 92; 34; 93

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.21037 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the letter No.3/2003 dated 22.9.2003 issued by Person-in-Management of Sri Rama Lingeswara Swamy Temple, Kamalapuram, Mudigonda mandal, Khammam district as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Article 21, 19, 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.” 2. Claiming to be the hereditary Archaka of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple situated at Ayyagaripalli, hamlet of Kamalapuram of Mudigonda mandal, Khammam district, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition, contending inter alia that their family has been rendering service to the said temple from their forefathers’ time i.e. for over a period of 200 years and that as part of salary/remuneration for rendering service to the temple they were given service inam in an extent of Ac.30-28 guntas situated at Kamalapuram Revenue village covered by Survey Nos.251, 252, 59, 144 and 87 and that the said land has been in their possession and enjoyment from their forefathers’ time. 3. According to the petitioner, the subject temple is a Group 6(c) Temple and its income is below Rs.50,000/- and the revenue records i.e. pahani copies and cist receipts show that the petitioner Archaka and his sons are actually cultivating and enjoying the said land and he raised crop loan from institutions like State Bank of India and Cooperative Bank and the respondents 1 and 2 have no legal rights to hold auction of the lands as contemplated in the Public Auction Notification issued vide Letter No.3/03 dated 22.9.2003. According to the petitioner, the Temple authorities resorted to the impugned action under the influence of the political persons in the village in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the proceedings Rc.No.L2/63873/2001 dated 4.12.2001 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Khammam, 1st respondent herein, denying the rendering of service by the petitioner as Archaka while putting the petitioner to strict proof of the same. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner is not performing his duties properly and to the satisfaction of the devotees due to his old age and that he has given the land to other persons on lease without any permission from the competent authority and that the petitioner is a defaulter in submitting assessments and budgets every year for last many years and eventually prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in view of the availability of alternative remedy under Sections 92 and 93 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The counter of the 2nd respondent further states that the 2nd respondent temple is a Section 6(c) Temple as its income being shown as below Rs.50,000/-; the petitioner has been the Archaka of the temple and enjoying an extent of Ac.30.28 guntas of land of the Temple and he is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the land to the extent of his remuneration for the services rendered and cannot take away all the income and if public auction is held, it would fetch Rs.1.50 to 2.00 lakhs; the petitioner is preventing the temple authorities to conduct auction on the ground that the temple is a 6(c) Temple; petitioner is not entitled to obtain any loan, showing the subject lands as security; so long as the petitioner renders service he can enjoy the fruits of the land to the extent of remuneration but not the entire income. 6. Pending writ petition, the sole petitioner passed away and his sons, by virtue of an order dated 19.7.2013 passed in W.P.M.P.No.23935 of 2013, have come on record as legal representatives of the sole writ petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent institution. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and the instructions of the office of the Commissioner of Endowments in Rc.No.L2/63873/2001 dated 4.12.2001, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned auction notification dated 22.9.2003. 9. Per contra, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavits, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader and Standing Counsel that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of alternative remedy under Section 92 of the Act and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition and further stated that there is every justification in issuing the auction notice. 10. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the “Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987”. By virtue of Section 34 of the said legislation, the State of Andhra Pradesh abolished the hereditary rights in Mirasidars, Archakas and other office holders and servants and the said provision reads as follows: “Section 34 - Abolition of hereditary rights in Mirasidars, Archakas and other office holders and servants (1) (a) Notwithstanding anything in any compromise or agreement entered into or scheme framed or sanad or grant made or judgment, decree or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or other authorities prior to the commencement of this Act and in force on such commencement, all rights, whether, hereditary, contractual or otherwise of a person holding any office of the Pedda Jeeyaugar, Chinna Jeeyangar, a Mirasidar or an Archaka or Pujari or any other office or service or post by whatever name it is called in any religious institution or endowment shall on the commencement of this Act stand abolished. (b) Any usage or practice relating to the succession to any office or service or post mentioned in Clause (a) shall be void; (c) All rights and emoluments of any nature in cash or kind or both accrued to and appertaining to any office or service or post mentioned in Clause (a) and subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall on such commencement stand extinguished. (2) Every office holder and servant mentioned in Clause (a) of sub- section (1) holding office as such on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding the abolition of the hereditary rights, continue to hold such office or post on payment of only such emoluments and subject to such conditions of service referred to in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 35. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section, the qualified members of those Archaka families which were continuing in archakatvam service under the provisions of the repealed the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and recognised as such by the competent authority shall continue to have the right to archakatvam without having any right to emoluments such families used to receive earlier under Act 17 of 1966. However they shall receive emoluments in accordance with the scheme under Section 144. 11. The said abolition of hereditary rights fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1 supra) and at paragraphs 135 to 141 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “135. Though we have upheld abolition of hereditary right to appointment as an archaka or other office-holders, the evidence from Vaikhanasa literature and other material indicate that archaka should bestow his total dedication to the Deity in the performance of daily rituals; at the same time, he and his family members must be kept in comfort. The property endowed for his services or the income derived from the offerings or the payment of salary, if any, is identified as a source for his living in comfort. The State exercising its secular power regulates appointment of archakas, as upheld hereinbefore; equally, he, along with his family, is required to be kept with daily comfort so that he would continue to dedicate himself to perform the ritual worship of the Deity. As indicated earlier, the State is required to determine his service conditions, scale of pay and other emoluments according to the grade of the temple in which he works and to regulate the period of duty and of service. That apart, welfare measures in addition should be initiated as a measure of social welfare to the archakas and other employees of the temple and pandits working in the temples and under the supervision of the Commissioner. Therefore, the State should come forward with a scheme to provide the archakas, other employees and their family members like suitable accommodation, education by way of refresher courses and courses in Agamas in the respective region, medical facilities, educational facilities to their children, loans for construction of their own houses, and wherever accommodation in the temple is available letting the same to them on reasonable rent, group insurance scheme, unforeseen contingencies like accident, death etc., rehabilitation of the widow or educated unemployed youth or such other measures as may be incidental and part of economic welfare. The extent of the similar facilities already existing and provided for may be excluded from c scheme. For other items appropriate scheme should be formulated. 136. In that behalf the State Government is directed to constitute a Committee consisting of the Additional Commissioner, Endowments Department, a Joint Secretary/Deputy Secretary [Endowment] Revenue Department; two representatives of the archakas to be nominated by their associations and one representative of other officer/servants of the temples. It would be open to the representatives of the archakas etc. to place their views and material before the Committee in the formulation of the scheme. The Committee will undertake an indepth study into the schemes and formulate the same. After the scheme is formulated, the Government would take a decision thereon and would place the duly approved scheme before this Court within six months from today for further action thereon. 137. We are of the view that to effectuate the scheme, tentatively a consolidated fund of Rs.75 crores would be set up as corpus and procedure would be evolved by the Government as to in which nationalize Bank or income yielding Government Securities the same would be deposited; as to who would operate and disburse the income accrued from the fund from time to time. Subject to further revision, if any, in the above consolidated fund, the TTD is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20 crores into the fund during the financial year 1996-97 by end of June 1996. Each financial year, a sum of Rs.10 crores be deposited till the corpus of Rs.75 crores is reached. The Government is also directed to call upon other major temple like Narasimhaswamy temple. Yadagirigutta; Sri Malikarjunaswamy temple, Karimnagar; Ugra Narasimhaswamy temple, Visakhaptam; Satyanarayanaswamy temple. Annavaram; and Kanakaduragmba temple, Vijayawada etc. with annual income of Rs.20 lakhs or more, to contribute to the said fund of Rs.75 crores. These temples may deposit the amount in annual instalments spread over a period not exceeding five years. During the financial year 1996-97, a sum of Rs.5 crores by each of the major temple may be directed to be deposited and in subsequent four years, a sum of Rs.1 crore every year may be directed to be deposited. In case of any difficulty, the Government would be at liberty to seek from this Court further directions or clarification or modification in that behalf. It would also be open to the Government to seek donations from other charitable institutions within or outside the State of Andhra Pradesh or from non-resident Indians. The State Government would also approach the Income-Tax Department and the Government of India to exempt from the income-tax the said donations as well as the income derived by way of interest or otherwise on the corpus of or further amounts deposited in the Fund. 138. When the matter had come up for admission, on June 22, 1987, this Court had directed status quo as to the rights of the hereditary archakas, trustees and mirasidars as on the date the Act had come into force. This Court had further directed that the archakas, trustees and mirasidars \"shall keep an account of the offerings, both in cash and in kind, and the value thereof as may be taken by the hereditary archakas, trustees, mirasidars as their remuneration, salary and perquisites as used to be taken by them immediately before the commencement of the Act and submit the same to the Executive Officer or to the Commissioner of Religious Endowments, as the case may every month by the 15th day of the next succeeding month. The first of such accounts shall be submitted by 15th July, 1987 for the month of June, 1987\". On October 13, 1987, the said order was modified to the extent of archakas receiving more than Rs.10,000/- as monthly emoluments. Direction was given to furnish security either by way of bank guarantee or immovable property security as ordered for archakas and gamakars in the main case. By further order dated August 25, 1987, an order was made to protect the interests of the TTD and two working groups, viz., archakas and gamekars thus: ‘Therefore, as an interim arrangement we direct that archakas shall furnish a consolidated security of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees twenty lakhs] either by way of bank guarantee or by way of property security to the satisfaction of the Additional District Judge. Tirupati within four weeks hence. Similarly, the other group who is incharge of preparing prasadams will furnish either bank guarantee or property security to the satisfaction of the same Additional District Judge of Tirupati of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty lakhs] within the same period. This amount has been fixed taking into consideration the possibility of this case being disposed of by this Court in course of 1988.’ 139. Though liberty was given to obtain further directions if the cases would not be disposed of by the year 1988, we do not find that any further directions were given by this Court. This Court had reiterated the interim direction dated June 22, 1987 referred to hereinabove. 140. In view of the fact that writ petitions and transfer cases are being disposed of, it would be open to the Executive Officer of TTD etc. to work out the payments made to the archakas, mirasidars and gamekare etc. and also the rights consistent with the law and would take action accordingly. 141. The writ petitions and the transfer cases are dismissed subject to the above directions. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.” 12. It is to be noted at this juncture that the Commissioner of Endowments vide proceedings Rc.No.L2/63873/2001 dated 4.12.2001 issued the following clarifications on the problems of Archakas: “1. Till the scales are extended and cadre strength is fixed, the lands of 6(a) & (b) temples also from the Archakas should not be disturbed. 2. The lands in 6(c) temples in possession of the Archakas anyhow will not be disturbed. 3. Contribution from their lands is withheld until further instructions”. 13. It is brought to the notice of this Court by all the learned Advocates appearing in this case that no scheme has been formulated so far as directed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above and it is also brought to the notice of the Court that no auction has been conducted pursuant to the impugned notification. A reading of the proceedings dated 4.12.2001 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments shows that Archakas of 6(c) Temples should not be disturbed. In the absence of any scheme and in the light of the said clarification dated 4.12.2001, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notification issued by the 2nd respondent herein cannot stand for twin tests of reasonableness and rationality. This Court is also not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel for respondents with regard to availability of alternative remedy in view of the reason that as long back as on 26.9.2003, this Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim order and at this length of time, this Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioners to avail alternative remedy as provided under the Act. It is also stated by the learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent that the writ petitioners are trying to create third party rights over the subject property. 14. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notification dated 22.9.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent herein is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, this adjudication does not authorize the petitioner either to alienate the subject property or create third party rights over the subject property and the petitioners are directed not to resort to such action. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 4.10.2013 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.21037 of 2003 4.10.2013 [1] AIR 1996 SC 1765 "