KOPPURAVURI KESAVULU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner is the Managing Trustee of Sri Satyanarayana Swamyvari Temple, Narasaraopeta; his ancestors constructed the said temple long ago; one Koppuravuri Venkatappaiah gifted the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.45 cents in Sy.No.110 of Guntagarlapadu village and an extent of Ac.4.62 cents out of Ac.6.90 cents in Sy.No.272 of Uppalapadu village to the temple under a registered gift deed dated 11.07.1921; as per the recitals of the said gift deed, the donors or their successors, as a committee of hereditary trustees, shall manage the temple with the income derived from the above lands; the temple is a 6(c) temple and is registered under Endowments Act and the gifted lands were also registered under section 38 of the erstwhile A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966; respondents 10 to 18, who are performing archakatvam service for certain periods, are only entitled to enjoy the lease amount and they do not have any right of ownership over the lands gifted to the deity; petitioner came to know that respondents 10 to 18, got created a partition deed amongst themselves and obtained pattadar pass books in their favour; the 13th respondent has alienated a part of the property in favour of 19th respondent; hence on 22.02.2020, petitioner along with respondents 16 to 18 made a representation to respondents 6 to 8 requesting them to include the subject property in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act; on 12.03.2020, he submitted another representation before respondents 2 to 4 requesting them to prevent the alienations and to recover possession of the property from the alienees; while things stood thus, petitioner came to know that, Government is contemplating to acquire the property belonging to the temple; since the subject land is temple property, respondents 5 to 8 have to follow the procedure contemplated under Act 30 of 1987 and the rules made thereunder to acquire the land; questioning the inaction of respondents 2 to 4 in protecting the temple property and the failure of respondents 5 to 8 to include the subject property in the prohibitory list, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition.