ORDER : Sri Visweswara Swamy vari temple and Sri Kanaka Durga Temple at B.Kondepadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District are served by a family of hereditary Archakas. Sri Velavalpalli Papayya Sastry, who was the hereditary Archaka at one point of time, had three sons viz., late Sri Satyanarayana Murthy, late Sri Subbaraya Sarma and late Sri Achutaramaiah. As Late Sri Subbaraya Sarma was given out in adoption, the family effectively has two branches. Sri late Satyanarayana Murthy had one son by name late Sri Achutaramaiah, who again had only one son Sri Nagendra Prasad, who is the 2nd petitioner herein. Late Sri Veera Venkaiah had two sons viz., late Sri Satyanarayana Rama Sastry and late Sri Dakshina Murthy Sarma. Late Sri Satyanarayana Rama Sastry had a son by name Veera Venkata Subba Rao, who is the 7th respondent herein. Late Dakshina Murthy Sarma had one son, who is the 1st petitioner herein. To sum up, the branch of late Sri Satyanarayana Murthy is now represented by the 2nd petitioner and the branch of late Sri Veera Venkaiah is represented by the 1st petitioner and 7th respondent herein. 2. In view of the family having two branches, the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh had passed an order dated 04.03.1957, based on the compromise offered by the members of this family in Miscellaneous Application No.511 of 1956. Under this order, the family of the Archakas was put in possession of extent of Ac.5.60 cents as remuneration for the services being rendered by the family of Archakas and for Padhitharam expenditure. Subsequently, an order was passed on 14.03.1957, wherein it was agreed that Archakas should be given possession of Ac.3.46 cents as per ‘B’ schedule. In this manner, the family of Archakas were given possession of Ac.3.46 cents in R.S.No.165, Ac.4.02 cents in R.S.No.184/1, Ac.1.20 cents in R.S.No.164/2 and Ac.0.38 cents in R.S.No.165/3A of B.Kondepadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. This land was given in lieu of the remuneration payable to the Archakas, performing Archakatvam in the two temples. Apart from this, the understanding between the members of the family, which was formalized by the above orders was that the Archakatvam would alternate between the two branches of the family on an annual basis. This land was given in lieu of the remuneration payable to the Archakas, performing Archakatvam in the two temples. Apart from this, the understanding between the members of the family, which was formalized by the above orders was that the Archakatvam would alternate between the two branches of the family on an annual basis. The branch of late Sri Satyanarayana Murthy presently consists of one member namely the 2nd petitioner and the branch of late Sri Veera Venkaiah consists of two members namely the 1st petitioner and the 7th respondent. This would mean that the Archakatvam would alternate in the following manner:- First year will be branch of late Sri Veera Venkaiah- late Sri Satyanarayana Rama Sastry; Second year branch of late Sri Satyanarayana Murthylate Sri Achuta Ramayya; Third year branch of late Sri Veera Venkaiah-late Sri Dakshina Murthy Sarma; Fourth year branch of Late Sri Satyanarayana Murthy - late Sri Achuta Ramayya. 3. This system of performing Archakatvam alternatively between the two branches, and enjoying the usufructs of the lands given to the family of Archakas, was continued till the demise of Sri late Dakshina Murthy Sarma in the year 2015. At the time, when late Sri Dakshina Murthy Sarma passed away, the 1st petitioner was already working as an Archaka in the 5th respondent temple, on a salary basis. The 1st petitioner claims that thereafter he sought to carry on archakatwam service in the place of his demised father. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that he had received a notice dated 04.08.2019, issued by the learned standing counsel for Endowments, Tadepalligudem requiring the 1st petitioner to hand over his half share of the land given to the Archaka family, within seven days to the temple, failing which, cases would be lodged against the 1st petitioner. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner gave a reply pointing out to the compromise orders under which the Archakatvam service is being rotated between the branches of the Archaka family and that the 1st petitioner as the son of late Sri Dakshina Murthy Sarma would be entitled to continue in service of the Deities in the two temples. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner gave a reply pointing out to the compromise orders under which the Archakatvam service is being rotated between the branches of the Archaka family and that the 1st petitioner as the son of late Sri Dakshina Murthy Sarma would be entitled to continue in service of the Deities in the two temples. The 1st petitioner also took the stand that the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings in Rc.No.A1/11025/49/2018, dated 25.02.2019 in which it was stated that the 1st petitioner had agreed to relinquish his Archakatvam rights in these two temples as he was already rendering Archakatvam service in the 5th respondent temple. The 1st petitioner submits that this proceeding is incorrect as the 1st petitioner had never given any such undertaking at any point of time. 4. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to perform Archakatvam service in these two temples in accordance with the order of rotation set out above. 5. The 7th respondent, who had not initially been arrayed as a respondent, had filed an application bearing I.A.No.1 of 2021 for impleading himself as the 7th respondent. This application was allowed and the pleadings of the 7th respondent were taken on record. The petitioners have also filed their replies to the pleadings of the 7th respondent. 6. It is the case of the 7th respondent that the 1st petitioner had, by his letter dated 11.05.2018, abandoned his Archaka code given in relation to Sri Visweswara Swamy vari Temple, B.Kondepadu Village and on the basis of such renunciation, the Executive Officer of the temples had addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments on 15.05.2018 as well as a letter dated 12.07.2018, for necessary orders in relation to the enjoyment of the lands as Service Inam in relation to the Archaka family. The matter was placed before the Commissioner, Endowments, who by his letter dated 25.02.2019, passed orders duly modifying the compromise orders by allotting half share to the 2nd petitioner and half share to the 7th respondent. 7. Heard Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents. 8. In this case, the rights of the 2nd petitioner are not really in dispute. 7. Heard Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents. 8. In this case, the rights of the 2nd petitioner are not really in dispute. The controversy essentially relates to the right of the 1st petitioner to participate in the Archakatvam services of the above two temples and to get the benefit of the usufruct of the lands given to the Archaka family. In the normal course, there would be no dispute in relation to the continuation of service by the 1st petitioner in these two temples. However, the dispute has arisen on account of the allegation that the 1st petitioner had renounced his rights in the Archakatvam service of these two temples. This contention is strongly denied and rebutted by the petitioners. Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners has a twofold submission. He submits that firstly, the 1st petitioner never gave any such undertaking or renunciation. Secondly, the said letter of renunciation produced before this Court would show that at best the 1st petitioner had only given up his Archakatvam code number, issued in relation to the above two temples and as such, it cannot be taken to mean that the 1st petitioner had renounced his rights as a part of the family of the hereditary Archaka of these two temples. 9. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents contends that the entire claim of the petitioners is based on an earlier scheme framed even before the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. He submits that the said scheme stands abolished by virtue of Section 34 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the Act, 1987) and as such, the petitioners claim to render archakatvam service and being given a share in the usufruct of the property does not arise. 10. Before considering the contentions of the petitioners, it is necessary to decide on the contention raised by Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. 10. Before considering the contentions of the petitioners, it is necessary to decide on the contention raised by Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. It is true that Section 34 of the Act, 1987 abolished all hereditary rights of Archakas claimed either by way of hereditary rights or by way of a compromise or agreement entered or scheme framed or order passed by other authority prior to the commencement of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act, 1987’). However, an amendment was carried out by way of Act No.33 of 2007 which introduced sub section 3 to Section 34 of the Act, 1987 which reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub sections (1) & (2) of this Section, the qualified members of those Archaka families which were continuing in archakatvam service under the provisions of the repealed the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and recognized as such by the competent authority shall continue to have the right to archakatvam without having any right to emoluments such families used to receive earlier under Act 17 of 1966. However, they shall receive emoluments in accordance with the scheme under Section 144”. By virtue of this provision, the earlier bar against hereditary archakatvam has been considerably watered down. This provision has created a right for all qualified family members of Archaka families, who were rendering archaktavam service in temples prior to the Act, to be continued as Archakas of their respective temples. In such a situation, the contention that the Petitioners cannot claim the right to Archakatvam is negatived. 11. The background for the introduction of this provision appears to be the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 1st case of A.R.Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1996) SC 1765 and the 2nd case of A.R.Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1996) SC 1765. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the amendment carried out by Act 33 of 2007, it must be held that until a scheme is framed under Section 144 of the Act, 1987, the petitioners would be entitled to continue to enjoy the benefits of the compromise, which has been recognized by the Commissioner of Endowments in the order dated 04.03.1957. 12. 12. In these circumstances, the contention of Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 that the terms and conditions of the compromise should not be given effect, cannot be accepted. Another reason for taking this view is the fact that the respondents themselves have been acting on the basis of the scheme of arrangement between the branches of the Archaka family and had sought renunciation of the Archaka code by the 1st petitioner in order to decide on the rights of the various branches of the Archaka family. 13. In the absence of the letter of renunciation alleged to have given by the 1st petitioner on 11.05.2018, there is no dispute that the 1st petitioner would step into the place of his deceased father Late Sri Dakshina Murthy Sarma. The entire dispute revolves around the letter of relinquishment said to have been given by the 1st petitioner. 14. The 1st petitioner claims that he had never issued such a letter of relinquishment. This Court, without going into the question of whether or not such a letter had been issued by the 1st petitioner, is considering the effect of such a letter as if it was written by the 1st petitioner. 15. The letter of relinquishment dated 11.05.2018 states that the 1st petitioner is giving up the Archaka code, given in relation to Sri Visweswara Swamy vari Temple, B.Kondepadu Village. There is no mention of renunciation of the rights accruing under the earlier arrangement. The letter itself records that the Archaka code is being given up as he was informed that one Archaka cannot have two codes. The learned Government Pleader was unable to obtain any instructions as to the manner and method in which the scheme of Archaka code is being administered by the Endowments Department. The only information that could be placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader was to the effect that every Archaka, who renders Archakatvam service in a temple, controlled and managed by the Endowments Department, is given a code number. The purpose, for which these code numbers have been given, is also not clear. Neither the contesting private respondent nor the learned Government Pleader or the learned Standing counsel could explain or place before this Court any material as to the effect of renunciation of such an Archaka code number. The purpose, for which these code numbers have been given, is also not clear. Neither the contesting private respondent nor the learned Government Pleader or the learned Standing counsel could explain or place before this Court any material as to the effect of renunciation of such an Archaka code number. In the circumstances, renunciation of such an Archaka code number cannot and would not amount to renunciation of any rights that the 1st petitioner would have for stepping into the shoes of his father upon the demise of his father. 16. While the 1st petitioner has been working an Archaka in another temple on a payment of salary, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have any option, to give up his employment in the other temple, and come back to the 6th respondent temple as an ‘Archaka’. As the rights of Archakatvam as well as the right to the usufruct of the agricultural land was being rotated branch wise, the father of the 1st petitioner, as the head of this branch, would be the obvious person to perform Archakatvam service in relation to the branch of Sri Veera Venkaiah, in accordance with the scheme of arrangement between the various branches of the family. Therefore, the 1st petitioner would obviously not be in a position to carry on Archakatvam service in the 6th respondent temple and is definitely entitled to search of employment elsewhere until such opportunity is available to the 1st petitioner after the demise of his father. As can be seen from the facts, the 1st petitioner, upon the demise of his father, had opted to rendered services to the 6th respondent temple. This option exercised by the 1st petitioner cannot be faulted either on the ground that he was earlier working as an Archaka in the 5th respondent temple or on the ground that he had relinquished his Archaka code in the 6th respondent temple. 17. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.