SRIPATHI PANDITARADYULA AGASTHYALINGAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner?s primary grievance, according to him, is that he desires to be recognized from the family of the Founder Trustees of ?SriAgastheswara Swamy Temple", Emani village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District. It is submitted that on account of the disqualification attributed to him by the authorities under A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short ?the Act?), he was earlier suspended from the position of Hereditary Trustee and ultimately was removed by order of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated:26.9.1986. THE petitioner has questioned the said order before the Regional Joint Commissioner in A.S.No. 6 of 1986 which was dismissed and as against the same he filed a revision before the Government. THE said revision was disposed of by the Government directing the petitioner to seek declaration to the effect that he is a member of the Founders? family. Consequent upon the said direction, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for the relief of declaration, which was rejected by order dated: 29.4.1997; and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order in O.A.No. 1 of 1998 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments was dismissed on 9.4.1998. THEreafter, against the order in O.A.No. 1 of 1998, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Regional Joint Commissioner in R.P.No. 12 of 1998, which was also dismissed. THE petitioner thereafter again approached the Government by further revision. THE said revision was disposed of by the Government in Memo. No.75922/Endts.IV(1)/200-4 dated:7.2.2003 directing the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner under section 87 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the question which required determination ? whether the petitioner belongs or is a member of the family of founders is specifically within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 87 (1) (h) of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 12 of 2003 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, which was dismissed on 18-02-2006. THE appeal filed against the said order in A.S.No. 137 of 2006 before the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur was also dismissed on 19-09-2007. Questioning the said orders of the V Additional District Judge, Guntur in A.S.No. 137 of 2006 this revision petition is filed under section 91 (ii) of the Act.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.S. Anand, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that keeping in view the registered document, Ex P-1, it is seen that forefather of the petitioner was the owner of Ac.9.76 cents under various survey numbers referred to above and after creating an endowment over the income derived out of an extent of Ac.8.76 cents, the remaining Ac.1.00 out of Ac.4.76 in survey No.289/1 was left with the family of the petitioner which was neither endowed nor was burdened with any condition. THE learned counsel, therefore, states that sale of the aforementioned Ac.1.00 of land, which is out side the endowed extent of Ac.8.76, does not amount to any act leading to disqualification of the petitioner from holding the office of hereditary trusteeship.