Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 600 (AP)

Pujari Ramanjaneyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-09-08

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2021
ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. The case of the petitioners is that they and their forefathers have been Archakas of two temples, known as Sri Vasantha Madhava Swamy Temple and Sri Vasantha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, situated at Puslur Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. It is their case that the petitioners and their forefathers had been rendering Archakatvam service in these two temples and had been granted certain Inam lands for their livelihood. It is further submitted that these lands, shown to be in the names of the temples, were being held by the hereditary Archakas only. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent had issued a public auction notice dated 24.03.2018 behind their back for the auction of the temples' Inam lands, admeasuring Ac.55.61 cents in Sy. Nos. 89, 172, 214, 270, 269/3F of Puslur Village, Nandyal Mandal, even though the lands were held by the petitioners and their forefathers as an Inam lands, given to them for performing Archaka service in the aforesaid temples. They would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 1756 and A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 3702 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that the temples with an annual income of less than Rs.5,00,000/- should be allowed to be managed as before and the earlier system of granting the land for the purpose of services in the temples should be continued. 3. The prayer sought in the writ petition is for a declaration that leasing out of the agricultural lands of the temples, by the 3rd and 4th respondents, is in violation of the provisions of Sections 29 and 144 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') and in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu (2 supra) and for a consequential direction to the respondents to handover the subject agricultural lands along with the lease amounts obtained from these lands to the petitioners. 4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, the 4th respondent does not dispute the fact that the forefathers of the petitioners had served as Archakas. 4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, the 4th respondent does not dispute the fact that the forefathers of the petitioners had served as Archakas. However, the 4th respondent states that the petitioners have not served as Archakas of the temples for the last 10 to 15 years and that the 1st and 4th petitioners are employees of Central/State Government and are enjoying the entire extent of Ac.55.61 cents by appointing a proxy Archaka, who is their relative, to perform pooja in the 4th respondent-temple. It is stated that the villagers had complained about the manner in which the Archakatvam service is being performed in the temples and in view of the said complaints, it was decided to auction the leasehold rights of the lands of the temples and the Inspector of Endowments, Adoni, had supervised such an auction proceedings, which was held on 24.03.2018. 5. It is stated that the lease amounts obtained by way of such auction proceedings amounted to Rs.5,18,000/-, were deposited with the Indian Bank main branch, Kurnool. Thereafter, a new Archaka was appointed as temporary Archaka on payment of Rs.10,000/- per month and the said person is being continued as of now. 6. The sum and substance of the contention of the 4th respondent is that since the petitioners are not carrying on Archakatvam service, they would not be entitled to retain the land as payment of salary for the service rendered by them. The 4th respondent, to demonstrate the aforesaid contentions, had taken the plea that the Code numbers given to Sri Vasantha Madhava Swamy Temple and Sri Vasantha Anjaneya Swamy Temples were 327414 and 327413, while the petitioners, in their affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had given the code numbers of these temples as 131801613347 and 131801615792. 7. The petitioners in their reply affidavit have stated that the temple code numbers were taken from the website of the endowment department itself, and as such, the contention raised by the 4th respondent is incorrect. On the question, whether they were continuing Archakatvam service or not, the petitioners pointed out that they had filed identity cards issued by the endowment department itself and these identity cards have not been denied by the 4th respondent. On the question, whether they were continuing Archakatvam service or not, the petitioners pointed out that they had filed identity cards issued by the endowment department itself and these identity cards have not been denied by the 4th respondent. These identity cards would show that one Mani Mani Venkata Rama Prasad and the 1st petitioner herein had been given identity cards by the endowment department itself declaring them to be the Archakas of the 4th respondent-temple. 8. The petitioners also rely upon the registered Will Deed dated 19.12.1932 relinquishment deed dated 19.10.1948 and the revenue pahanies showing the names of some of the petitioners, which would go to show that the petitioners have been continuing in Archakatvam service. It is also significant to note that none of these documents have been denied by the 4th respondent. Further, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioners are employed elsewhere or that they have not been willing to perform Archakatvam service. 9. In view of the same, this Court cannot accept the contention of the 4th respondent that the petitioners have ceased to Act as archakas of the temple, at the very least till the temporary Archaka was appointed by the respondents. 10. The Government itself had submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the annual income of the temples is less than Rs.5,00,000/- the said temples should be allowed to be managed by the respective managements of the temples under the supervision of the endowment department and the Archakas being permitted to retain the properties given to them in lieu of payment of salary. This recommendation of the Government was also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. Thereafter, Section 34(3) and proviso to Section 144 of the Act were added by way of Act 33 of 2007 with effect from 03.01.2008. The purport of these two provisions was to declare that qualified members of those Archaka families, who are continuing in Archakatvam service, as recognised by the competent authority, shall have the right to continue their Archakatvam service. However, instead of the earlier remuneration, they would receive emoluments in accordance with Section 144. The first proviso to Section 144 stated that the provisions of Section 144 would be applicable only to those institutions, whose annual income is above Rs.5,00,000/-. However, instead of the earlier remuneration, they would receive emoluments in accordance with Section 144. The first proviso to Section 144 stated that the provisions of Section 144 would be applicable only to those institutions, whose annual income is above Rs.5,00,000/-. The second proviso stated that the Commissioner would be competent to frame a scheme in case of any of the institutions, stipulating the conditions of service and payment of emoluments to the Archakas and office holders of the institution, after obtaining approval of the Dharmika Parishad. 12. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Endowments had issued Memo No. L1/28350/2010 dated 19.06.2010 instructing all the Regional Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners that the agricultural lands in the possession of the Archakas as service Inams cannot be put up for public auction without fixing the salaries to the Archakas. 13. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 (for short 'the Rules') made under Section 34 (4) read with Section 153 of the Act, stipulates in Rule 5 that the trustee of every institution has to prepare a Schedule of establishment specifying the designations and the number of posts in each category or grade, their scales of pay, allowances, qualifications, method of recruitment and submit the same to the competent authority for approval, who shall, thereafter, approve the schedule with such alterations, additions or omissions, as may be deemed necessary. 14. In view of the statutory requirement under the above Rules, the salaries of the Archakas have to be fixed. 15. In view of the above facts, it must be held that the leasehold rights of the land belonging to the temple, which were to support the Archaka families, cannot be auctioned unless and until pay scales are fixed for such Archakas and salaries are paid in accordance with that scale. 16. When a similar issue had come up before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, a learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, by an order dated 18.06.2014 in W.P.M.P. No. 20594 of 2014 in W.P. No. 16585 of 2014 had directed that the respondent authorities should fix the pay scales of the Archakas and thereafter take action to auction the leasehold rights of the lands belonging to the subject temple. 17. 17. Even though this order is an interlocutory order, I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of the said order. I am of the view that the Archakas of the temples, who are subsisting on the income from the service Inam lands belonging to the temples, cannot be made to give up such lands until and unless the appropriate authority fixes the scale of pay and other service conditions of such Archakas. 18. In the present case, the lease amount being obtained from the lands of the temple is said to be Rs.5,10,000/- per year. As the annual income of the temple is above Rs.5,00,000/-, the first proviso to Section 144 would not apply. However, the second proviso permits the Commissioner to frame a scheme stipulating the conditions of service and payment of emoluments to Archakas and other office holders. This proviso read with Memo No. L1/28350/2010 dated 19.06.2010 of the Commissioner of Endowments would make it clear that unless and until a scheme is framed in terms of the second proviso to Section 144, the leasehold rights of the lands, which had earlier been given as service Inam to the family of the petitioners, cannot be auctioned. 19. In the present case, as there is some amount of controversy as to whether the auction of the leasehold rights of the land was conducted on account of the absence of the petitioners or whether the department had forcibly excluded the petitioners from the Archakatvam service, and had thereafter, auctioned the leasehold rights, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions :- 1. The petitioners would be entitled to continue as Archakas of the 4th respondent-temple. 2. The petitioners, for the purpose of demonstrating their intention to continue as Archakas, shall submit affidavits of undertaking to the 4th respondent stating that they are willing to continue as Archakas of the temple, within two weeks from today. 3. Upon submission of such affidavits, the 4th respondent shall permit the petitioners to perform Archakatvam service in both the temples. 4. The 4th respondent or such competent authority shall fix the terms of Archakatvam that would be performed by each of the petitioners. In the event of any dispute on this issue, the same shall be resolved before the appropriate authority. 5. 4. The 4th respondent or such competent authority shall fix the terms of Archakatvam that would be performed by each of the petitioners. In the event of any dispute on this issue, the same shall be resolved before the appropriate authority. 5. The petitioners shall perform Archakatvam service personally and shall not appoint or engage any other person to conduct Archakatvam service in either of these temples in lieu of offering service personally by them. 6. The 4th respondent shall handover the land of the temple to the petitioners, which was earlier treated as the service Inam of the family of the petitioners assuring them of their livelihood. However, it shall always be open to the 2nd respondent to frame a scheme for fixation of scale of pay for the petitioners and payment of such salary to the petitioners in accordance with the second proviso to Section 144 of the Act. 7. Upon such scheme being framed, the 4th respondent shall be entitled to auction the leasehold rights of the land belonging to the temple and pay the petitioners salaries in accordance with the scheme framed by the 2nd respondent. 8. In the event of none of the petitioners coming forward to perform Archakatvam service personally or in a situation where it is found that the petitioners are not performing Archakatvam service personally, the 4th respondent can take back the lands given as service Inam to the family of the petitioners and auction the leasehold rights of the land. 9. The lease amounts collected for the last three years shall be utilized for the benefit of the temple and no part of the said amounts need be paid to the petitioners as they have not performed Archakatvam service in the temple for these three years. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.