COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS Vs. VITTAL RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the order dated 21.10. 1998 made by the Division Bench of the High Court in writ appeal no. 429 of 1998 is under challenge. Parties are before this Court for the third time in relation to the same subject matter.

(2.) One Fauzdar Khan donated 5 bighas of land situated at Hyderabad to one Gunnaji, the ancestor of the respondent no. 1 for the purpose of construction of a temple, now known as Sri Jangli Vittobha Temple. Gunnaji died and after his death, his sister suguna Bai completed the construction of the temple. In 1939, one Golakishan Gir claiming himself to be the Mutawalli of the temple, mismanaged its affairs. The Government having come to know about the same, constituted a committee under Rule 156 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) wakf Rules. Manik Rao, father of the respondent no. 1, applied to the Registration officer in 1962 for transfer of Towliatship of temple in his name. The Registration officer (the Assistant Secretary of Board of Revenue) after holding inquiry by the order dated 15.1.1964 held that said Manik rao was the rightful claimant to the towliatship and consequently ordered for amendment of Column No. 11 of munthakab under Rule 36 (c) of Hyderabad endowment Rules. Aggrieved by this order, the temple committee filed an appeal to the Director of Endowments, who, by his order dated 29.10. 1966, confirmed the aforementioned order dated 15.1.1964. The temple committee pursued the matter further by filing a revision petition before the Government assailing the order dated 29.10. 1966 made by the Director of endowments. The revision petition was allowed and the order of the Director of Endowments affirming the order of the registration Officer was set aside as is evident by g. O. Rt. No. 680 dated 17. 06.1971. It is against this G. O. that Manik Rao filed a suit o. S. No. 509/1971 in the City Civil Court, hyderabad, for declaration that he was the hereditary Mutawalli of the temple; for perpetual injunction against the authorities and individuals, restraining them from interfering with his Towliatship and from constituting or reconstituting any committee for the temple and for setting aside the said G. O. dated 17.6.1971. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal No. A. S. No. 199/77 filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court was allowed by the first appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 22.12.1978, which decreed the suit of Manik Rao granting the relief as sought for in the said suit. The temple committee preferred second appeal being S. A. No. 122/79 in the High Court against the judgment dated 22.12.1978 aforementioned made by the first appellate court. It may be stated here itself that neither the Government nor the Commissioner of endowments (defendants 1 and 2 respectively) filed second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in favour of Manik Rao. Although they were respondents 2 and 3 in the second appeal no. 122/79 filed by the temple committee, they did not participate. In other words, they did not put forth any plea before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said second appeal on 2.7.1979 concurring with the findings recorded by the first appellate court and affirming the decree passed by it. The High court held that the land in question was gifted absolutely to Gunnaji and that the government could not claim any interest in it. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the temple committee acting through its Chairman, approached this Court by filing SLPs questioning the validity and correctness of judgment and decree passed by the High court in the second appeal. This Court dismissed C. A. Nos. 702/80 and 703/80 on ' 12.8.1987 after granting leave in the SLPs. Thus, the judgment and decree passed in favour of Manik Rao by the first appellate court in A. S. No. 199/77 attained finality.

(3.) About two years later, the Commissioner of Endowments, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (appellant no. 1) , by his letter dated 14.6.89 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh gave a detailed report seeking permission to compromise the dispute in the best interest of the temple. In response to the said letter, Joint secretary to the Government by memorandum dated 27.10. 89 stated that a compromise might be made on certain terms.