THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.541 of 2009 Between:
1. Prabhath Photo Studio rep. By its Proprietor, Gitturi Nagendra Rao and others.
PETITIONERS AND
1. Hanuman Mandir Alaya Committee, Lopalikota, Sadasivpet, Medak District, rep. by its Chairman, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief – “……..to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent Committee in issuing the impugned notices directing the 1st petitioner to hand over the possession of the Shoip No.1, the 2nd petitioner to hand over the possession of Shop No.2, the 3rd petitioner to hand over the possession of Shop NO.3 and the 4th petitioner to hand over the possession of Shop No.4 bearing common Door No.2-4-89/1, Sastry Road, Sadasivpet, Medak District, for constructing Sri Ramasahita Satyanarayana Swamy Temple in the land allegedly said to be belonging to Sri Hanuman Mandir, Lopalikota, Sadasivapet Post and Mandal, Medak District, as bad, illegal arbitrary, oppose to law and one without jurisdiction and pass………”
2. Heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-institution, Learned Government pleader for Endowments for respondents 2 and 3, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioners they have been running different trades in Shop Nos.1 to 4 situated at Sastri Road, Sadasivpet Post and Mandal, Medak District, subject to payment of rental amount of Rs.1200/-; Rs.1500/-; Rs.1200/- and Rs.1500/- respectively. It is their case that they have constructed the said shops on their own expenses. While disputing the title of the 1st respondent, it is the case of the petitioners that after some time, on the request of the 1st respondent, they started paying rents only with an intention that the said payment would accrue to the benefit of the temple. The principle contention advanced in the present writ petition is that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices, asking the petitioners to vacate the shop rooms.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent enclosing a copy of the agreement signed by the petitioners herein dated 13.02.2008 saying that they would vacate the shop rooms to enable the construction subject to allotment of the same after completion of the construction. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the term of the 1st respondent, trustee of the temple, came to an end in the year 2010.
5. It is to be noted that Section 83 of the Endowments Act empowers the authorities to remove the encroachments. As per the said provision of law the Assistant Commissioner is authorised either suo motu or upon a complaint made by the trustee to report the fact together with relevant particulars to the Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction over the division in which the institution or endowment is situated. Sub-sections 2 to 4 empower the Endowments Tribunal to adjudicate upon such complaints. In view of the above said provision of law this Court is of the opinion that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to evict the petitioner.
6. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the provisions of the Endowments Act, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notices dated 11.11.2008 issued by the 1st respondent. However, this order will not preclude the authorities from initiating appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
14th July, 2014 Js.