TEKI VENKATA RATNAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, in the light of the contentions raised and submissions made, the following question arises for consideration and decision -

(2.) In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are : It appears, a notice was issued by the Inspector of Endowments on 8-10-1975 to the Executive Officer of Shri Panduranga Vitthal Swami Temple, Chilakalapudi to register the said temple under Ss. 38 and 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Act'). Challenging the same, W.P. No. 5480 of 1976 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24-11-1976 placing on record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been advised to raise a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner under S.77 of the 1966 Act to contend that the temple did not fall within the purview of the said Act, being a private one. However, later the petitioner filed a writ appeal against the order made in the aforementioned writ petition. The writ appear was dismissed, noticing the statement made by the learned counsel in the writ petition as stated above but granted six weeks' time to the petitioner to take steps as advised. The petitioner did not file application under S.77 of the 1966 Act. While the matter stood thus, the Assistant Commissioner, by his order date 14-11-1977 appointed the Inspector of Endowments, Machhlipatnam as the Chief Festival Officer for Kartiks Shudha Ekadashi from 20-11-1977 to 26-11-1977. In the R.P. No. 168 of 1977, the Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, set aside the said order on the ground that the order by the District Court, Krishna, in O.P. No. 1 of 1940 declaring the temple as private temple, was in force and as such Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the order appointing Inspector of Endowments as the Festival Officer, while reserving liberty to the parties to move the Deputy Commissioner under S.77 of the 1966 Act for declaration that the temple is a public in view of the changed circumstances. Thereafter, a notice was issued in O.A. No. 1 of 1987 under S. 87 (wrongly quoting as under S. 77 of the 1966 Act) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the 1987 Act') to decide whether the said temple was a public temple or not. The appellants and some others challenged the very jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to decide such a question. However, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 20-7-1987 held that he had jurisdiction to do so under S.87 of the 1987 Act. Assailing the said order, Writ Petition No. 10824 of 1987 was filed. Before a learned single Judge, it was urged that under S.77 of the 1966 Act there was no power to enquire and decide whether a temple was a public temple or a private one and that as on the date of the issue of the impugned notice, 1966 Act had been repealed. Repelling the said submission, the respondent pointed out that since the 1987 Act had come into force by then, under S.87 of the said Act, the Deputy Commissioner was competent to hold enquiry and decide the question. The learned single Judge, accepting the submission made by the respondent, dismissed the writ petition holding that the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide as to whether the temple was a public temple or a private one. The appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 89 of 1994 questioning the validity and correctness of the said order. The Division Bench of the High Court, after noticing in sufficient detail succinctly stated about the previous litigation of more than two decades and after considering the respective contentions, elaborately referring to the provisions of the 1966 Act and 1987 Act giving the historical background, by detailed order dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the very same submissions, which appear to have been made before the High Court. The emphasis of his argument was on the point that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to determine the question whether a temple is a public temple or a private one. According to him, the Deputy Commissioner has power and jurisdiction only as to the questions enumerated in Cls. (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of S.87. He further submitted that as per S. 1(3) of the Act it does not apply to a private temple; when the Act itself does not apply to a private temple, the Deputy Commissioner could neither enquire into nor decide whether the temple in question is a private temple or not. He made one more subsidiary submission that in the light of the decree passed by the District Court as early as in 1940, it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner to invalidate or override it and pass order under S.87; according to him, the said decree passed by the Deputy Commissioner operated as res judicata.