Miriyala Narayana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 488 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

             WRIT PETITION No.1572 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioner, who claims to be the person

performing the religious duties in relation to the deity known as

"Sri Ankamma Thalli", Gorrepadu Village, Ballikurava Mandal,

Prakasam District has approached this court, by way of the

present petition being aggrieved by the action of the 2nd

respondent in publishing the said religious structure as "Sri

Ankamma Devasthanam" by proceedings in

R.Dis.No.11/1102/2021, dated 18.12.2021 as an institution

published under section 6 (c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act, 1987[for short "the Act, 1987]".

2. The petitioner contends that the structure which is

now being recognised as a temple does not have any of the

characteristics and features of a temple. He also submits that,

in view of the judgment of this court dated 22.11.2021 in

W.P.No.10283 of 2021, the said structure/temple can only be

recognised and registered initially under Section of 43 of the

Act, 1987 and subsequently published under Section of 6 (c) of

the Act, 1987 after appropriate notice has been given to all the

affected persons. He submits that the said procedure has not

been followed in the present case.

3. Heard Sri D.V.Sashidhar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.

4. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader,

on instructions, that the contention of the petitioner that there

is no temple and it is only a structure is incorrect. However, she

concedes fairly that the procedure set out in the judgment of

this court in W.P.No.10283 of 2021 has not been followed.

5. In these circumstances, the impugned proceedings

R.Dis.No.J1/1102/2021 dated 18.12.2021 are set aside, leaving

it open to respondents to take such further steps as may be

permissible under law for registration of the said structure/

temple after due notice to the petitioner and all other affected

parties, as laid down in the aforesaid judgment of this Court.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

31.01.2022 BSM

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.1572 of 2022

31.01.2022

BSM