ANANT PRASAD GANERIWAL Vs. GOVT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 4th respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad - in not delivering the physical possession of the land belonging to Sri Sitaram Maharaj Samsthan to the petitioner as directed by the 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Endowments - by order dated 11.4.2001 in O.A. No. 36 of 1986 is arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner was recognized as the sole hereditary trustee of Sri Sitharam Maharaj Samsthan, Sitharambagh, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the temple') by order dated 20.11.1956 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments (Registrar of Public Trust, Amaravathi). Subsequent to the enactment of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short, 'Act 17 of 1966'), the petitioner was recognised as the sole hereditary trustee of the temple by order dated 20.03.1968 in O.A. No. 19 of 1967 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. After the repeal of Act 17 of 1966, by virtue of Section 155 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short, 'Act 30 of 1987') the petitioner and his younger brother were recognised as members of the founder family by order dated 28.7.2006 in O.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. The said order dated 28.7.2006 in O.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2005 was also confirmed by the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Endowments - by order dated 2.12.2006. It is claimed that the petitioner has been administering and managing the affairs of the temple right from the year 1956 till date. It is also stated that at the instance of the petitioner, eviction proceedings under Section 75 of Act 17 of 1966 were initiated in O.A. No. 110 of 1981 (renumbered as O.A. No. 36 of 1986) on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad for removal of the encroachment on the property belonging to the temple. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Act 17 of 1966 stood repealed and as per Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987 which is in pari materia to Section 75 of the repealed Act 17 of 1966, the eviction proceedings in O.A. No. 36 of 1986 were continued. After due enquiry the 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner - by order dated 11.4.2001 while declaring the 2nd respondent therein as an encroacher within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 83(1) of the Act 30 of 1987 directed removal of the encroachment and deliver vacant possession of the property to the petitioner herein within 15 days failing which action as provided under Section 84 of Act 30 of 1987 would be initiated. The said order attained finality by order of this Court dated 5.8.2009 in W.P. No. 13383 of 2009. Even thereafter as the encroacher failed to deliver possession of the property in his occupation, the 4th respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments - by letter dated 20.5.2010 requested the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahal P.S. to provide the police assistance on 1.6.2010 to assist the departmental staff to remove the encroachment and to hand over the physical possession to the founder family member. However, the 4th respondent had addressed another letter dated 26.5.2010 requesting to provide police assistance on 1.6.2010 for removal of the encroachment and to hand over physical possession to the 5th respondent - Executive Officer of the temple. Aggrieved by the said action of the 4th respondent in directing delivery of physical possession to the 5th respondent instead of the founder family member, the present writ petition has been filed. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned letter dated 26.5.2010 which is quite contrary to the order passed by the 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner - dated 11.4.2001 in O.A. No. 36 of 1986 wherein there was a specific direction to deliver vacant possession of the property in question to the founder family member is arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the provisions of Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987. It is further contended that the 4th respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments - has no power to alter the order passed by the 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Endowments - who is the competent authority to make an order under Act 30 of 1987.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner who is only a founder family member, is not entitled to take possession of the properties of the temple. It is further stated that the Commissioner of Endowments has been appointing Executive Officers to the temple in question since 1972 and the Executive Officer has been managing the affairs of the temple and therefore the Executive Officer alone is entitled to take possession of the property. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his family members have been acting highhandedly and not allowing any Executive Officer to function and exercise their powers and as many as 25 charges are framed against him and the disciplinary proceedings are pending. The 5th respondent - Executive Officer of the temple - filed a separate counter stating that the petitioner has not been acting in the interest of the temple and that he has constructed a building in the site of the temple at a cost of Rs.38 lakhs out of the temple funds and that he has been staying in the said building with his family. It is also stated that W.P. No. 21919 of 2008 and W.P. No. 4637 of 2010 filed challenging the illegal activities of the petitioner are pending on the file of this Court and by orders dated 30.09.2010 and 2.3.2010 the founder family member was directed not to take up further constructions without obtaining the orders from G.H.M.C. It is further stated that having regard to the high-handed action of the petitioner in utilizing the service of the temple employees and interfering with the affairs of the temple, the Commissioner framed as many as 25 charges and further proceedings are pending.