Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Chunduru Gopala Krishna Murthy Died vs The Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 6 September, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.16288 of 2009
Between:
# Sri Chunduru Gopala Krishna Murthy (died) and others
... Petitioners
And
$ The Commissioner of Endowments
Government of A.P., Dharmika Bhavan,
Boggula Kuna, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and another
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 06.09.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.16288 of 2009
% 06.09.2024
Between:
# Sri Chunduru Gopala Krishna Murthy (died) and others
... Petitioners
And
$ The Commissioner of Endowments
Government of A.P., Dharmika Bhavan,
Boggula Kuna, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and another
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D.V. Sasidhar
Counsel for Respondents: Smt. P. Padmavathi
A.G.P for Endowments
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
APHC010293842009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 16288/2009
Between:
Sri Chunduru Gopala Krishna Murthy (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Commissioner Of Endowments Government Of and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. D V SASIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P PADMAVATHI
2. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
"....to issue appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of
st
mandamus declaring that the 1 respondent has no jurisdiction and to declare the action of
st
the 1 respondent in granting adoption without there being any material whatsoever is bad,
st
illegal and consequently to set aside the order of adoption issued by the 1 respondent in
Proceedings in Rc.No.G3/28094/2007, dated 3.8.2007 and pass...."
2. The facts of case are that Sri C.V.Reddy belongs to Vysya
Community has established an Institution by name Sri CV. Reddy
Charitable Trust by a Will Deed dated 24.4.1944. He donated his own
properties situated in the Vijayawada City to the Trust by way of the said
Will and under the Trust Deed/Will Deed, he appointed his wife and 3
others as lifetime Trustees and all of them predeceased Sri C.V. Reddy,
who also died on 31.1.1981. Sri C.V. Reddy has no issues and the 1st
petitioner is the son of his elder brother late Sri Ch. Kanthaiah. He filed
OA No.149 of 1989 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments,
Kakinada (for short "the Tribunal"), for declaration as a Hereditary
Trustee and the same was allowed declaring him as a Founder Trustee
by an order dated 27.2.1991. While the matter stood thus, the
Government has appointed an Executive Officer in the cadre of
Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. Though the Institution is
running very well, the 2nd respondent temple who is headed by an officer
of Regional Joint Commissioner has submitted a letter in
Rc.No.E1/2859/2007, dated 29.6.2007 stating that Sri C.V.Reddy
Charities having vast properties i.e., Godown and shops and they
required reconstruction. Even if the reconstruction is done, that may not
fetch the Institution in a profitable manner and as the 2nd respondent's
temple is interested to take the landed properties and the fixed deposit
amount of Rs.28 Lakhs. The 2nd respondent temple also given
undertaking that the amount of Rs.28 Lakhs will be deposited in the
name of Sir C.V. Reddy Charities and it will continue to fulfill the objects
of the Donor. But without calling report from the District Officer and
without taking consent from the Trustees of the Institution, the 1st
respondent approved the proposal of adoption and directed the 2nd
respondent to administer the adopted temple treating that the C.V
Reddy Charities is in a poor financial position. The action of the 1st
respondent in giving adoption without hearing the Trustees and without
looking into the financial status is bad. The adoption order issued by the
1st respondent is bad in law and cannot be sustainable. Hence, the
present writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While
denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the Board
of Trustees of the subject Institution has passed a resolution on
12.04.2008 and resolved, that the orders of the Commissioner,
Endowments Department, Hyderabad passed in D.Disc.G3/28094/07,
implement the same dated 03.08.2007. They further resolved to as the
wholesale Iron business was shifted to Market Yard, Bhavanipuram from
I Town, and some of the tenants are vacated from the godowns and
handed over the same to the subject institution and in spite of the
auctions conducted by the subject institution, nobody have come
forward to participate in public auction for the lease of the Shops and
Godowns and since the subject institution is in a poor financial position,
it is better to give the said institution for adoption to the 2nd Respondent
i.e., Sri Durga Malleswaraswamyvarla Devasthanam for better
management and also for the development of the institution and that the
movable and immovable properties of subject institution, including the
working staff and the immoveable property of an extent of 1276.9 sq.
yards including the structures therein to be handed over to the 2nd
Respondent herein. The Trust Board has also resolved to handover the
deposit amount of Rs.28, 32, 320/- to the 2nd Respondent in the shape
of FDRs with a request to fulfill the objects of the Donor and further
requested the 2nd Respondent Devasthanam not to encash the said
Deposits.
4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the 2nd Respondent
has fulfilled the objects of the donor and the Executive Officer of the
Institution has spent an amount of Rs.31,500/-, towards scholarships,
Rs.73,610/- for poor feeding and on donors day spent an amount of
Rs.27,000/- towards scholarships for veda students, an amount of 500 /-
towards Sangeetha Bharatanatyam, Rs,15,000/-for arrangement of
meals to poor students on donors day and further they spent
Rs.30,000/- for arrangement of meals to poor students on donors day in
the year 2007-2008. It is further stated that the 2nd Respondent has also
spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and odd towards the fulfill the objects
of the Donor in the year 2008-2009. Thus the allegations made by the
Writ Petitioner that the 2nd Respondent is not even giving scholarships
etc., are not true and correct and is only invented for the purpose of
filing Writ Petition. It is further stated that since the structures godowns
of the subject Institution are in dilapidated condition, the 2nd Respondent
has decided to dismantle the old structures and to construct a new
building in the same place to get more benefit to the subject institution to
fulfill the objects of the donor. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued
notices to all the tenants and requested them to vacate and handover
the vacant possession of the property to the 2nd respondent herein as
the building is in dilapidated condition. But some of the tenants have
approached this Court questioning the demand of the 2nd respondent
then this Court has allowed the said writ petitions and directed the 2nd
respondent to follow the procedure for eviction of the writ petitioners.
Further, it is stated that, the Commissioner, Endowments Department,
Hyderabad has issued proceedings in D.DisNo.G2/23781/2009 dated
19.06.2009 duly granted permission for dismantling the structures and
accorded permission to sell the wood and steel in public auction in the
presence of a Committee constituted by 2nd respondent. Accordingly the
2nd respondent constituted a Committee consisting of five (5) officials
and the same was intimated to all the members of the Committee vide
Rc.No.E1/1135/09, dated 20.06.2009 and accordingly the Committee
conducted tender-cum-auction on 27.7.2009 and the highest bidder was
declared and the same was informed to the Commissioner for approval.
It is further stated that the allegations made by the writ petitioner are not
true and correct and the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file writ
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court, vide order, dated 04.12.2023 in I.A No.1 of 2023 has
added the proposed 2nd petitioner as 2nd petitioner in the main writ
petition.
5. Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing
Smt.P.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while
reiterating the averments made in the petition submits that the action of
the 1st respondent normally may not have any objection to the petitioner
as in the place of one Executive Officer in the cadre of Regional Joint
Commissioner and the same objects of his paternal uncle can be
continued. Learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent has
not even giving the Scholarship etc., as was done in earlier and by his
action, the entire objects of the Donor is going to be defeated. The 2 nd
respondent is planning to convert the Charities into that of Choultry and
Guest Houses. At that time, the 1st petitioner has filed a petition before
the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to declare the 1st petitioner
as a Member of Founder's family. But the 2nd respondent has
influenced the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and stating that
once an adoption took place, both the Institutions are treated to be a
single Institution, only to avoid the check of members from the Founder.
Learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent temple, who is
headed by an Officer of Regional Joint Commissioner has submitted a
letter in Rc.No.E1/2859/2007, dated 29.6.2007 stating that the Sri
C.V.Reddy Charities having vast properties and they required
reconstruction and that as the 2nd respondent's temple is interested to
take the landed properties, it will be helpful to the 2 nd respondent temple
for providing Dormitories and Guest House. He mainly submits that
without calling for a report from the District Officer and without taking
any consent from the Trustees of the Institution, the 1st respondent
adopted the proposal of adoption and directed the 2nd respondent to
administer the adopted temple treating that the C.V Reddy Charities is in
a poor financial position, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that after
demise of the 1st petitioner, the proposed 2nd petitioner, who is the son
of the 1st petitioner came on record and he filed O.A No.203 of 2011
before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani seeking
to declare him as a member of the founder family of Sri C.V.Reddy
Charities, Vijayawada. After considering the material on record and
after perusing all the evidence the Tribunal observed that Sri C.V.Reddy
himself was not recognized as the only founder of the institution and that
during the lifetime of the members of the management committee of the
Institution including Sri C.V.Reddy have not appointed their nominees to
represent them in the committee as envisaged by the Will of Sri
C.V.Reddy. The Assistant Commissioner had appointed the father of
the petitioner as a founder family member without considering the
requisites of a person to be declared as such. Therefore it was held that
the petitioner is not eligible to be declared/ recognized as a member of
the founder family for the subject institution and accordingly dismissed
the said O.A. vide order dated 07.08.2019. Learned counsel further
submits that, aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the 2 nd petitioner
herein preferred an appeal vide CMA No.81 of 2024 before this Court
with a delay of 1533 days in filing the CMA and this Court has ordered
Notice to the respondents on 27.2.2024 and the same is pending
consideration.
8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents while denying the contents made by the petitioner,
reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit. He submits that
the present writ petition becomes infructuous and the petitioner is not
entitled to seek a declaration that the action of the 1st Respondent in
granting adoption and consequently to set aside the order of adoption
issued by it in its proceedings in Rc.No.G3/28094/2007, dated
03.08.2007, since, the said proceedings have already been
implemented by the 2nd Respondent. He submits that, in pursuance of
the approval of the 1st respondent, number of works have been taken
up and completed in accordance with the directions in the proceedings
dated 03.08.2007. Therefore the present Writ petition is belated and the
same is not entertained at this stage, as directions given in the
proceedings in Rc.No.G3/28094/2007, dated 03.08.2007 have already
been carried out by the 2nd Respondent and the petitioner is not entitled
to seek for suspension of the operation of the order of adoption issued
by the 1st respondent, dated 03.08.2007 and consequently the petition
has no merits and the same is deserves to be dismissed.
9. On hearing the submissions, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd petitioner herein hails from the
family of the founders and all the records indicate that the petitioner's
family hails from the family of founders. The 1st petitioner who is father
of the 2nd petitioner was also declared as a hereditary trustee of the
subject institution. So, by virtue of the petitioner's father being declared
as a hereditary trustee of the 2nd respondent institution, it is an
undisputed fact that the 2nd petitioner herein also is entitled to succeed
his father in line of succession as a founder trustee. It is also contended
that the District Court had recognized the father of the 2nd petitioner as a
legal heir of Sri C.V. Reddy.
10. Further, it is the contention of the respondent counsel that Sri
C.V.Reddy has not adopted any person during his lifetime or nominated
anybody to succeed the estate left by him including the founder family
member trustee. It is also the contention of the respondents counsel
that in pursuance of the proceedings dated 3.8.2007, number of works
have already been taken up and completed in accordance with the
directions in the proceedings. Further, this writ petition is filed at belated
stage and the same is not entertained at this stage as the directions
given in the said proceedings have already been carried out by the 2nd
respondent. Moreover the petitioner has no locus standi to file the
present writ petition.
11. As seen from the impugned proceedings dated 3.8.2007,
wherein, the Commissioner, Endowments Department approves the
proposal for adoption of the said Sri C.V. Reddy Charities, Vijayawada ,
Krishna District by Sri Durga MalleswaraSwamyvarla Devasthanam,
Vijayawada is exercise of the powers vested under Section 145(1) of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions &
Endowments Act 1987 (for short "the Act 30/87"). It was also mentioned
that " he is also requested to watch the progress in the financial position
of the temple and report when it becomes self sustained as per Section
145(2) of the Act 30/87".
12. It is pertinent to mention here the Section 145 (1) to (3) of the
Act, reads as under:
145. Adoption or amalgamation of institutions and endowments -
(1) Where the Commissioner has reason to believe that any religion institution is not capable of
maintaining out of its funds, he may, in the interest of proper management of administration, subject to
such restrictions and conditions as he may deem fit, direct the amalgamation or as the case may be, the
adoption of such religious institution by any other religious institution having similar objects and capable
of managing such institution and there upon the trustee of the institution to which it is amalgamated or by
which it is adopted shall maintain and administer such institution.
1[Provided that the conditions to be satisfied for any such adoption or amalgamation shall be as
may be prescribed.]
(2) On such amalgamation or adoption the institutions shall be deemed to comprise a single
institution and administered as if they were a single institution published under section 6.
(3) Where the institution so amalgamated or as the case may be adopted under sub-section (1),
subsequently found to be capable of being managed by itself, the Commissioner may in the interest of
proper management of administration, revoke the orders issued under sub-section (1), and thereupon
the institution shall manage its affairs independently out of its funds.
13. On a perusal of the above, in the present case, the 2nd petitioner
has added as legal heir of the 1st petitioner and he filed OA No.203 of 2011
before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal seeking to declare him as a member
of the founder's family of Sri C.V. Reddy Charities. But the same was
dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 7.8.2019. Aggrieved by the
same, he preferred an appeal vide CMA No.81 of 2024 with delay of 1533
days in filing appeal before this Court. In the said case, notice was ordered
and the same is pending. Since the declaration of Member of the
founder's family issue is pending before this Court, the petitioner has no
locus standi to question the adoption or amalgamation proceedings. The
petitioner can challenge the same subject to result of the appeal vide CMA
No.81 of 2024 which is pending before this Court.
14. Moreover as per Section 145(1) the Commissioner may in the
interest of proper management of administration direct the amalgamation or
adoption of such religious institution by any other religious institution having
similar objects and capable of managing such institution to which or by which
it is adopted shall maintain and administer such institution. Therefore, viewed
from any angle, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merit
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if the
petitioner succeeds in the appeal in CMA No.81 of 2024 that he is declared
as a member of the Founder's family, then he will take recourse under
Section 145(3) of the Act.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 06 -09-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date : 06.09.2024
Gvl
