BRAMARAMBA CHENNAMALLESWARA SWAMI TEMPLE ISUKAPDILI Vs. THETA NARASIMHARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was referred by Muktadar, J. to a Division Bench on the ground that the question raised in the case is of importance.

(2.) The Assistant Commissioner Bapatla, filed a report O. A. No. 31/70 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, under S. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act (Act No. XVII) of 1966 (hereinafter called the Act) stating that one Kesana Narasimhulu and forty other persons had encroached upon Survey Nos. 58/1 and 38/2 of Isukapalli village belonging to Sri Bramaraml Chennamalleswaraswamy Temple Isukapalli and constructed houses there and hence they should be evicted. It a stated that in a compromise between the Archakas of the temple which was a proved by the Commissioner this la fell to the share of the temple. It was originally in the possession of the Archakas and in the year 1941 one of Archakas leased the lands to one M.Subrahmanyam for a period of ten years for raisins a casuarina tope. On the expiry of the lease, M. Subrahmanyam did not vacate the land Instead he was subleasing it to forty other persons and was not paying any amount to the temple. It was also stated that under the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolotion Act, a patta was granted to the temple and both land revenue and Municipal taxes were being paid by the temple. A show cause notice was issued to M. Subrahmanyam and the other forty persons under S. 75 (2) of the Act. Subrahmanyam filed a counter stating that he was not a trespasser but was enjoying the land in his own right, lie denied the title of the temple for the land and also the execution of the lease deed in favour of Archakas. The other forty persons admitted the claim of the temple and requested that the land in their possession might be sold to them on payment of market value.

(3.) Sri Subrahmanyam also filed a petition, O. A. No. 48/1970, under Section 77 (b) of the Act for a declaration that the lands were not properties of the endowments. After an elaborate enquiry, that petition was dismissed on 30-9-1970.