VALETI HIMAVANTHA RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.4 and 5 have filed a petition under Sec. 87 (1)(c ) of the Endowments Act before 1 st respondent by duly impleading the other respondents as parties seeking to declare that the Tank covered in Sy No.251 of Ganapavaram Village is a property of the 2nd respondent temple and it is a pubic religious endowment. The sadi application was numbered as O.A No.33 of 2002 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dtd. 1/5/2004. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments has passed orders and published the copy of order without confirmation of the Commissioner of Endowments under Sec. 87(3) and (5) of the Endowments Act. Later, one of the Voter of Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat has submitted an application to the 1strespondent as well as to the 7th respondent to dispose of the order of confirmation made by the Commissioner of Endowments in OANo.33 of 2022 dtd. 1/5/2004. In response to his application, the Commissioner has requested the said applicant to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Guntur with regard to the information vide letter dtd. 24/5/2013 and whereas the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments has respondent vide its letter dtd. 18/6/2013 stating that "No confirmation or approval orders were received from the Commissioner, Endowments Department A.P. Hyderabad, against the Order No.47 dtd. 1/5/2004 in OA No33.2002" Therefore, it is stated that, though it is clear that the order of Deputy Commissioner cannot be affected, the 3rdrespondent is not conducting the auction of lease hold rights of fisheries rights of the said Tank in St No.251 of Ganapavaram village, which belongs to 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat, but without any authority the 2ndrespodentn auctioning these fisheries rights int eh said Tak and appropriating the income derived thereupon illegally. Therefore, questioning the action of the 1st respondent in publishing the copy of order in OA No.33 of 2002 without confirmation of the 7threspondent, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) The counter affidavit has been filed by 2nd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that, during utsavams in the temple, "Theppotsavam" was being conducted in the said tank. Accordingly the said tank had been under the management of the 2nd respondent temple for centuries together. Due to passage of time and to overcome the hurdles in the maintenance of the temple and in order to get income for the maintenance of the temple, the temple started to auction the Fishery Rights to catch the Fish in the Tank so as to augment income for maintenance of the temple from a long time. It is stated that when some un-ruly elements and busy bodies in the village, for their personal political gain raised a dispute with the active connivance of Gram Panchayat as regards the temple Tank, the then Hereditary Managing Trustee of the temple Late Sri Kellampalli Veeraiah, filed a Suit in O.S. 272/1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge Court, Narsaraopet, Guntur Dist, for declaration that the Schedule Tank and the Land appurtenant to it did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the Panchayat from interfering with the Temple's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and etc. It is stated that the temple auctioned the lease hold rights of fishery rights on 11/4/1988 for a period of 2 years and accordingly the same was auctioned after following the due procedure. The Govt. of A.P. accorded permission to the respondent temple to auction the said lease rights and even issued a G.O. in G.O.R.T. No: 698, revenue (Endowments IV) department, dtd.: 10/6/1988 accepting the lease in public auction for the period from 11/4/1988 to 10/4/1990. All the above facts clinchingly prove that the respondent temple is the absolute right, title and possession over the subject tank and used to auction the Fishery Rights. It is stated that the petitioner mainly contending in this petition that there is no confirmation of the orders passed in O.A. 33/2002 by the Commissioner, Endowments Dept., A.P., Hyderabad, U/s. 87 (3) and (5) of the previous Act.30/87 i.e., prior to Amendment Act.33/2007 and without any authority the 2nd respondent temple auctioning the fisheries rights in the tank and appropriating the income derived thereon illegally and since the income of the Grampanchayat is decreased and being a voter and Ex.- Sarpanch he filed the present petition since he is deprived the better amenities from the panchayat. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent temple never approached the Dy. Commissioner, Endowments Dept., Guntur, for declaration in O.A. 33/2002, and it is only the devotees of the temple, who are the respondents 4 and 5 in this petition got filed the said O.A. seeking for declaration in view of the above mentioned chronic, illegal claim being made by the Grampanchayat. It is the specific contention of the 2nd respondent temple and in fact there is sufficient material to show that the temple is the absolute owner of the tank from centuries together which was even recognized by the British Government as early as in 18th century by granting title deed to the temple over the said land in D.No. 251 and the temple had been in possession and enjoyment of the said tank from times immemorial. As such the 2nd respondent temple is not based it's claim solely on the orders passed in O.A. 33/2002, but in fact, auctioning the fishery rights even much prior to the declaration the temple is exercising it's right as an absolute owner as mentioned supra.