HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.P.No. 8334 of 2004 DATE: 28.04.2014 Between:
Jangam Prabhakar .. Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer and two others .. Respondents O R D E R:-
The petitioner asserts that his father used to do archakatvam service in Eswaraswamy Temple in Sy.Nos.815, 394, 494 and 746 situated in Peapully village and Mandal, Kurnool District and the temple falls within the purview of Section 6(c) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). While so, it is stated that his father passed away on 21.10.1989 and since then, the petitioner and the members of his family have been in possession of the Temple land and continuing archakatvam profession. While so, it is stated that under the provisions of Act 30 of 1987, hereditary rights of archakas were abolished on account of a policy decision taken by the Government, however considering the fact that the burden of payment of salaries cannot be borne by the Government, the archakas, who were attached to the temple, were allowed to cultivate the land and take the revenue generated from it in lieu of their salaries. The 3rd respondent - Commissioner of Endowments issued Circular dated 24.10.2003 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the temple lands, which are in possession of the archakas falling under Section 6(c) of the Act, have already been instructed not to be disturbed and the executive authorities of the institutions are specifically directed to follow the instructions strictly. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 2nd respondent – Executive Officer, Endowments Department is trying to auction his leasehold right over the land by dispossessing him from the property. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions.
Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly submitted that when similar matters came up for consideration, this Court, having considered the submissions of the respective counsel, passed various orders and one such order is dated 25.07.2012 in W.P.No. 8623 of 2004. He further submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment and Sri Rama Rao, Advocate representing Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Eswaraswamy Temple appearing for the 2nd respondent, has not disputed this fact.
In the light of the respective submissions and following the order dated 25.07.2012 passed in W.P.No. 8623 of 2004, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to disturb the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the land till a comprehensive decision is taken by the State Government overriding its earlier policy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 28.04.2014 bcj