PALAKALURI VAIDYANATHAN Vs. GANGABHRAMARAMBA SAMETA CHANDRASEKHARA SWAMIVARI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that while his father was working as Archaka or Sri Ganga Bhramaramba Sameta Sri Chandrasekhara Swami Vari Temple (herein after called 'the temple' for short) Takkelapadu village and Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, the Joint Commissioner Endowments passed an order dated 28-4-1972 in R.Dis.No.C6/O.A. No.218/71(C.No.83425/70)apportioningthe land owned by the temple and the Archaka, wherein the share of the Archaka was fixed as Ac. 13-49 Cents. It is also his case that this order was passed pursuant to a compromise entered into between the parties and the Assistant Commissioner Endowments was directed to handover the possession of the land allotted to his father forthwith and complete other formalities. But, unfortunately the official respondent did not take any steps to carry out the orders of the Joint Comm issioner. In the mean time, the temple filed the eviction petitions under the A.P.Tenancy Act, against the tenants over the lands. Though his father got himself impleaded and claimed his interest over the lands allotted to him the tenancy tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that he has to agitate his rights before a proper forum and not before the tenancy Court. In fact while the tenancy application is pending his father died in the year 1983, and the petitioner was appointed as Archaka of the temple in the place of his father. He also came on record in the tenancy matters after the death of his father and the said litigation seemed to have been ended in the year 1990. In the mean time, on a representation made by the petitioner the Assistant Commissioner Endowments passed an order dated 09-11 -'89, directing the Executive Officer to pay the entire arrears to him by fixing the salary by observing that by virtue of the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court of Indiaon an application filed by the hereditary Archakas questioning the vires of the new Act i.e., Act of 1987, which has taken away the rights of the hereditary Archakas and a provision was made for payment of salaries to the Archakas.

(2.) Now, the Government Pleader brought to my notice that the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act and as such the petitioner cannot claim any share in the income of the temple lands and he is entitled only to the salary as per the rules framed by the Government under the Act. In the counter filed by the respondents they have also expressed their willingness, that if a representation is made by the petitioner for fixation of his salary as per the rules enforce, necessary action will be taken in the matter at an early date. This legal position was not challenged by the Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) But, the question to be decided in this writ petition is that while the rules framed by the Government provide for payment of salary after the new Act (Act 30 of '87) came into force, under the pro visions of the old Act, the Archakas were put in possession of the temple lands for the services rendered by them and they used to collect usufruct from the lands for eaking out livelihood. In fact, that is the effect of the compromising decree passed by the Joint Commissioner on 28-04-72. But, it is on record now that from 1972 to 1987 i.e., till the new Act came into force neither the petitioner's father nor the petitioner were allowed to enjoy the usufruct of the lands to which they are entitled to under the comprom ise decree nor they were paid any salary during that period. From this it is seen that the respondents failed to implement the decree passed by the Joint Commissioner and allowed the petitioner and his predecessor in title to enjoy the usufruct from the lands that are allotted to their share. For no fault of them they are penalised. I feel that ends of Justice can be met by directing the respondents to pay damages to the extent of the rent received by them for land from the tenants during the interagnum period i.e., from 28-04-1972 till the new Act came into force. The 4th respondent shal1 personally see that the order of this Court is implemented forthwith without any further loss of time. The respondents are directed to pay the amounts that were received from the tenants of the lands which were apportioned to the share of the petitioner's father till the new Act came into force with 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.