SITARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE Vs. PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd Respondent in appointing the 5th Respondent as a Single Trustee of the petitioner temple vide proceeding Rc. No.A1/8877/2013 dtd. 8/8/2013. The petitioner's Great Grandfather by name Sri Chelakani Dhramrayanam was constructed the petitioner Temple. Being founder, he was continued as Managing Trustee. After demise of his great grandfather as a successor of the Founder Trustee of his grandfather, his father was appointed as a founder trustee. After demise of the petitioner's father his mother was looking after the affairs of the temple as a successor, now recently she was also died leaving behind the petitioner and his brother. Since his brother has no interest to continue as trustee he appointed the petitioner as managing trustee being successor of petitioner's mother. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as the Archaka of the Temple trying to alienate the property of the petitioner temple, they have resisted by filing a suit in O.S.1088/2000 for permanent injunction which was decreed in favour of the temple. Questioning the said decree they preferred appeal which was rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and same was carried to this Hon'ble Court by way of CRP which is pending. In spite of injunction granted by the competent civil court the petitioners are obstructing to cultivate the lands. Therefore, they filed EP.No. 125/2008 for arrest in violation of court orders which was dismissed against which the petitioner filed CRP.No.2180/2013. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent at the instigation of unsuccessful parties in civil litigation, has been initiated impugned proceedings, basing on the alleged report, submitted by the 4th respondent, vide Rc No.A3/6493/2013 dtd. 27/7/2013 which was not known to the petitioner. It is further stated that the high handed action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a Single trustee of the petitioner temple amounts to termination of petitioner's successive founder trustee, it is utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 denying the allegations made in the petition. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, the petitioner cannot say that she is the hereditary trustee. She was never declared as a hereditary trustee to the temple at any point of time. Nor there was any entry in the property register indicating the existence of the hereditary trustee ship. The petitioner does not have any declaration as a founder family member. Even as per Sec. 17 of the AP Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the petitioner cannot be declared as a Founder Family Member since only the heir in agnatic line of succession has to be considered. In fact Sri Chelikani Dharma Rayanam was not the person who constructed the temple and the petitioners cannot claim that he is the founder of the temple. It is stated that, the single trustee appointed has taken oath of the Seetarama Swamy vari Temple, Aryavatam Village on 16/8/2013 and issued the public auction notice dtd. 2/9/2013 indicating the date of auction as 12/9/2014. One Sri Velagala Sathi Reddy, S/o Rajareddy became the highest bidder offering a sum of Rs.2,30,000.00annual rent for the period from 12/9/2013 to 11/9/2016. The highest bidder has paid the rent for the year 12/9/2013 to 11/9/2013 for an amount of Rs.2,30,000.00. The auction particulars were forwarded to the competent authority on 12/9/2013 and the same was approved by the Asst. Commissioner on 13/9/2013 and the highest bidder was handed over possession on 12/9/2013 itself. The GPA Holder was issued notice dtd. 18/8/2013 duly asking him to handover the records of the temple. But there is no response from the neither the GPA holder nor the petitioner. There are absolutely no merits in the above writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.