SURYADEVARA JAYAPRADA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the 5th respondent-temple has been established more than 100 years back for which a trust has been executed on 22/6/1923 by appointing one Suryadevara Venkatappaya as a hereditary trustee by Chimakurthy Yellamandhu and said Venkatappaya has been appointed as hereditary trustee, since the said date till his death and after his death, his wife Subamma has been functioning as hereditary trustee there after the Subbamma has acted as trustee and due to old age, she has filed an application before the Commissioner, Endowments for appointment of Suryadevara Hariprasada Rao as hereditary trustee and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner vide its proceedings dtd. 2/1/1981 has appointed Suryadevara Hariprasada Rao as hereditary trustee. After the death of Suryadevara Hariprasada Rao on 9/6/2012, his wife Suryadevara Jayprada has been continuing as hereditary trustee for 5th respondent temple. In the year 2017, she made an application through his grandson for appointing her grandson to appoint him as hereditary trustee, surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dtd. 24/9/2021 vide Rc.No.D3/14021(51)/10/2018 appointing Chimakurthy Venkateswara Rao as hereditary trustee for 5th respondent temple on the ground that he is declared as hereditary trustee vide Rc.No.A2-1166/66, dtd. 18/2/1966 and similarly passed proceedings dtd. 24/9/2021, vide Memo Rc.No.D3/14021(51)/10/2018, dtd. 24/9/2021 that there is no concept of guardian to trustee under the Act. Questioning the proceedings dtd. 24/9/2021 appointing a third person as a hereditary trustee, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25986 of 2021 and this Court disposed off the said writ petition vide order dtd. 20/4/2022 setting aside the impugned proceedings and further directed the respondent authorities therein to consider to act upon the representation. Till date, the respondent authorities failed to act upon the petitioner's representation in pursuance of the 5th respondent temple. While things stood thus, the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent temple is making efforts to demolish the temple and reconstruct the same by moving the deity and sanctorum from its original position to Flagstaff (Dwajasthambham) of the existing temple. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) This Court, vide order, dtd. 30/5/2023 has granted interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 reads as follows: