Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boreddy Eswar Reddy vs Assistant Comissioner Of Endowmwnts on 1 March, 2024
APHC010046362018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
:: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [
3310
]
FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 75 OF 2018
Between:
BOREDDY ESWAR REDDY ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF ENDOWMWNTS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. M VIDYASAGAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated
04.01.2017 passed in O.A No.791 of 2010 (old O.A No.97/1997) on the file
of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Pedakakani (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Mutt is called as Sri Uma
Maheswar Mutt, established at Kothapalli Village in the year 1924-26 by late
Nancherla Nagi Reddy, Advaithananda Swamy. He belonged to the Naravad
Kapu caste and he became "Sadhu" and founded and headed the Mutt at
Guntakal and that some devotees had gifted lands to Swamiji for running
the Mutt and that the said Swamiji also purchased some lands from Nalla
Gangula Venkat Reddy and he assumed charge as Mathadhipathi of Sri
Uma Maheswar Mutt, Kothapalli and erected a Samadhi. After demise of
the said Nallagangula Venkata Reddy, the then Matadhipathi as per his
wishes and directions, his disciple Sri Tatireddy Rami Reddy became
Matadhipathi and he erected a Samadhi for his Guru who is Nallgangula
Venkata Reddy. The said Rami Reddy acted as Matadhipathi for over 20
years.
While the matter stood thus, the claimant/appellant gained philosophical
knowledge and started imparting the same to the disciples of Mutt.
Ultimately, on 18.02.1980 on the eve of Sri Ramakrishna swamy Jayanthi,
the appellant installed as the Matadhipati of Mutt by Sri Tadireddy Rami
Reddy in the presence of the disciples and since then the appellant assumed
charge as Matadhipati of Sri Uma Maheswar Mutt, Kothapalli. The
appellant, who is none other than the illatam son-in-law of Sri Venkata
Reddy and thus the Matadhipathi has been in the family descendants of Sri
Nallagangula Venkata Rddy and so the Mutt was treated as private Mutt.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the Chairman of the
Institution i.e., respondent while denying the allegations made in the
petition inter alia contended that the Commissioner of Endowments by his
proceedings dated 17.09.1987 directed the Assistant Commissioner to
publish the temple under Section 6(c ) (ii) of the Endowments Act 30/1987
and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments made a
publication on 24.6.1989. The department has periodically appointed a
Trust Board and the then Trust Board was constituted in 1992 and Sri
Sagam Nagi Reddy was elected as the Chairman and thereafter, public
auction was held on 8.5.1992 to lease out the properties. It is further stated
that the previous lease holders one Sri T. Bhaskar Reddy filed ATC No.8 of
1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif-cum-Special Officer, Nandyal for
declaration that he was the cultivating tenant under A.P. (Andhra AIR)
Tenancy Act and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.1996
holding that the lands belong to the temple and that the orders became
final. The appellant failed to challenge the notifications made in 1987 and
1989 but approached this Court by way of filing WP No.17206 of 1996
against the public auction of temple lands dated 21.8.1996. Accordingly,
this Court disposed of the said writ petition and directed the Deputy
Commissioner to enquire into the matter. The temple has an extent of
Ac.3.69 cents in S.Nos.1285/2, 1285, 1305 and 1305/4 of Kothapalli
village. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration of trial:
1) Whether the Mutt and the property is a private and un-endowed one and
outside the purview of the Act and the notification by the Commissioner is
not sustainable as claimed under Section 87(1)(c ) of the Act?
2) To what result?
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner/appellant
PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked and on behalf of the
respondent, RW.1 was examined but no documents were marked.
6. After careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the
claim of the appellant Sri B.Eswara Reddy that he is Matadhipathi and
Institution is a private Mutt was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.
7. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the
respondent.
8. On hearing , learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
Tribunal totally erred in ignoring the fact that in the said institution there
was samadhees which virtually goes to show that the O.A schedule
institution is a mutt as all the ingredients indicate the nature and character
of the institution as a Mutt. He further submits that the Tribunal also failed
to appreciate the fact that the subject institution was published as a
religious institution without notice to the appellant herein and in gross
violation of the procedure contemplated under the Act. He mainly
contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in accepting the contention of the
Chairman, who is no way connected to the institution nor he has any
knowledge about the Mutt or the properties connected to the Mutt and it
was only on a subsequent date that the Chairman had come into picture
only with the aim of grabbing the lands of the institution. He further
submits that the Tribunal gravely erred in giving a negative finding in spite
of the deposition of the official respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner
of Endowments fairly conceding that there are Samadhees of Gurus existing
in the Mutt and the only deposition that it is termed as a temple and if that
be so the Tribunal erred in giving such a finding that it is not a Mutt nor the
appellant is a Matadhipathi and the Tribunal also failed in giving a finding
that it is a public religious institution without discussion any evidence as to
how it has become a public religious institution when all the ingredients
indicate that it is a private mutt and it is restricted to a family and only a
certain group of people and not thrown open to the public and also erred in
referring to the order of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Special Officer,
Nandyal in ATC No.8 of 1992 which is absolutely irrelevant as the appellant
has no right to lease out the land as a matadhipathi. Therefore, learned
counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders and the order of the
Tribunal may be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the contents
in the counter filed before the Tribunal. He further contended that the
appellant failed to place any material before this Court to establish that he
is the Matadhipathi and the properties are specific endowments. The lands
were being leased out for the benefit of the temple and the same is
confirmed in ATC No.8/1992. The appellant has no right or interest over
the properties in question and the temple is in possession and enjoyment of
the properties. He further submits that the appellant has approached this
Court by way of filing WP No.17206 of 1996 against the public auction of the
lands of the temple dated 21.8.1996. There is no other source of income to
the temple except releasing of the lands by way of public auction. The
temple has an extent of Ac.3.69 cents in S.Nos.1285/2, 1285, 1305 and
1305/4 of Kothapalli village. Hence, learned counsel submits that the
Tribunal has rightly concluded and hence prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.
10. On perusing the impugned order, it is observed that, the claim of
the appellant is that the institution is a private Mutt and he is the
Matadhipati. The contention of the respondent is that it is a temple and the
appellant is not Matadhipathi. It is an admitted fact that the institution was
registered under Section 6(c )(ii) of Act 30/1987 in the year 1987 and
thereafter in the year 1989 it was registered under section 6(d) of Act
30/1987. The concerned authorities of Endowments Department,
themselves were not sure, whether it is a temple or Mutt.
11. This Court further observed from the evidence of PW.1 that the
institution is running by three Gurus prior to the appellant as Heads of the
Institution. So far as, running the Institution by previous heads is not in
dispute. It is observed from the evidence of RW.1 that, he stated that there
is no existence of temple in the subject institution premises and people call
the institution as Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy Mutt and that there is no
Dwajastambam, Galigopuram and Mandapam. RW.1 also accepted that
Samadies of Gurus are existing and so it is called Mutt and from the
physical features of the subject institution, it is only a Mutt.
12. Viewed from any angle, this Court observed that the Tribunal
erred in accepting the contentions of an unconnected person a self-styled
Chairman who gave a vague statement indicating that the land belonging to
the mutt was donated by somebody without even indicating their name, the
Tribunal came to a conclusion that it is a public religious institution and
also erred in giving a finding that it is a public religious institution without
discussion any evidence as to how it has become a public religious
institution when all the ingredients indicate that it is a private mutt and it is
restricted to a family and only a certain group of people and not thrown
open to the public.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on
hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the
view that the Tribunal without application of mind rejected the claim of the
petitioner that he is Matadhipathi and Institution is a private Mutt and
hence without going into the merits of the case, deems fit to remand back
the matter to the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned order.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting
aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 passed in O.A No.791 of 2010
(old O.A No.97/1997) on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at
Pedakakani, is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to
the Tribunal with a direction to consider the evidence adduced by the
parties in a proper manner and dispose of the same, in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (04) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall
stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gvl
