CHITTIBOTLA BHARDWAJA SARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the grandfather of the petitioner by name Venkat Seshaiah constructed the 5th respondent temple in the year 1907-08 as can be witnessed the note on the stone in the temple that his grandfather had performed the Pratista of Lingam. The other eight temples were constructed by his father and his friends. His grandfather has donated money and lands for the development of the temple and also for conducting the festivals. His father constructed Nandiswara Alayam, Parvathi temple, Navgraha Mandapam, Koneru (pond) by spending money and also from donations. Till his death, his grandfather was the trustee of the subject temple and also managed the temple and later the petitioner's father Sri Eswara Sarma taken the responsibilities of the subject temple as chairman and later, the petitioner managed the temple as trustee. The petitioner's grandfather started Annadanam in the subject temple and the same is being continued. It is further stated that it is not in dispute that the petitioner's family members have been looking after the affairs of the temple as hereditary trustee. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent i.e., D.Dis.No.A6/1196/72/Adm/D/dt.24/10/1973 is very clear on this aspect. The petitioner was appointed as trustee and chairman of the subject temple by the Endowments department in the year 1995 along with 4 non-hereditary trustees. It is further stated that the respondent authorities have not taken any interest seriously in the interest of subject temple by considering the case of the petitioner as founder trustee and chairman of the subject temple, while issuing notification Rc.No.A11/5922/2015-GNL, dtd. 7/8/2015 in pursuance of notice dtd. 6/5/2015 of the respondent authorities without verifying the register extracts made under Sec. 43 of the A.P.Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, which itself sufficient to prove that the entries made there under are final in respect of the hereditary founder trustees and the same is self sufficient extract for the purpose of appointment of Founder Trustee and chairman of subject temple. Thus the respondents have no right in any other manner contradicting the entries made there under except follow the same unscrupulously. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) This Court, on 30/1/2017, granted interim direction, directing the second respondent to pass necessary orders on the application submitted by the petitioner, within a week from that day.