ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Assailing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 14-10-2009 which directed the 4 th respondent – Executive Officer to take/assume complete charge of Petitioner Mutt, this Writ Petition is filed, on the ground of violation of the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Act'). 2. During the hearing, petitioner has taken out I.A.No. 1 of 2025 to receive the additional affidavit along with material papers annexed thereto treating the same as part and parcel of the Writ Petition. 3. Petitioner Mutt is one of the oldest Hindu Religious Mutts in Hyderabad and owns Acs.540.30 guntas of land in Survey Nos.1010/1 to 1015, 1024, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1066, 1067 to 1070 of Kukatpally Village. By registered lease deeds, dated 23-07-1964, 14-09-1996, 21-03-1969 and 20-04-1978, said lands were leased out to M/s Indian Detonators Limited and IDL Chemicals Limited for a period of 99 years and since then, the said companies are in possession of the land. 3.1. It is stated, deponent was recognized as Mahanth of Mutt by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 25-11-2006. In the process of complying with Section 22 -A of the Act, it came to light that aforesaid land is not in possession of lessees and M/s Gulf Oil Corporation Limited is in possession thereof. Further, lessees have not protected leased property and land admeasuring Acs.9.00 was converted into burial grounds, when it was left unfenced by the lessees. As the said leases are in violation of the provisions of the Act whereunder all the existing leases stood determined by operation of law, the Mutt initiated proceedings for eviction before the Endowments Tribunal i.e. O.A.No. 579 of 2010 (old O.A.No. 21 of 2008) under Section 83 of the Act for eviction of lessee and for payment of user and occupation charges. The Tribunal by order dated 17.09.2011 directed petitioner to approach the civil Court for ascertaining use and occupation charges. Questioning the order of eviction, lessee filed Writ Petition No. 31893 of 2011 while petitioner Mutt filed Writ Petition No. 8005 of 2012 for ascertainment of use and occupation charges. By common order dated 07.03.2013, Writ Petition No. 31893 of 2011 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 8005 of 2012 was allowed. Questioning the order of eviction, lessee filed Writ Petition No. 31893 of 2011 while petitioner Mutt filed Writ Petition No. 8005 of 2012 for ascertainment of use and occupation charges. By common order dated 07.03.2013, Writ Petition No. 31893 of 2011 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 8005 of 2012 was allowed. Lessee filed Civil Appeals No. 7759-7760 of 2014 which were dismissed by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 13.09.2022. Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments delivered possession of schedule lands to petitioner Mutt on 15.10.2022. Subsequently, petitioner Mutt pursued I.A.No. 2 of 2010 in O.A.No. 579 of 2010 for payment of use and occupation charges and enquiry into the said charges is going on before the Tribunal. 3.2. The case of petitioner is that they have been taking all measures for proper upkeep and maintenance of properties of Mutt. However, the 2 nd respondent issued impugned proceedings directing the Executive Officer to take/assume complete charge of temples/institutions and report compliance without fail. But, till now, the 4 th respondent had not assumed charge. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the 2 nd respondent had no power or authority to either appoint an Executive Officer or empowering him/her to take charge of a Mutt as there is no enabling provision in the Act for such an action. It is submitted that Matathipathi is the supreme authority to exercise control over the affairs of Mutts subject to the provisions of the Act. Consequent upon the amendment of Act by Act 33 of 2007, the power in respect of a Mutt, be it removal of Matathipathi, filling of temporary/permanent vacancies in the office of Matadhipathi, recognition of nominations as Matathipathi and the power to frame schemes in respect of a Mutt are specifically endowed on Dharmika Parishad constituted under Section 152 of the Act. The power to appoint an Executive Officer in respect of a Mutt can only be in the situations covered by Section 55 of the Act. The power to appoint an Executive Officer in respect of a Mutt can only be in the situations covered by Section 55 of the Act. Under the said provision, a scheme of administration framed the Dharmika Parishad which was constituted under G.O.Ms.No. 1034, dated 01.10.2009 may provide for appointment of an Executive Officer in respect of a Mutt and that too when it comes to the conclusion that the affairs of the Mutt and its properties are being mismanaged, etcetera. In the absence of any such allegations, the impugned action is totally unsustainable and liable to be interdicted. 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when litigation is being pursued vigorously for the purpose of getting the properties released by initiating proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, the impugned action of appointment of Executive Officer is nothing but putting spokes in the smooth conduct of the litigation. Under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, the Mutt is entitled to administer its affairs, subject to the provisions of the statute regulating the same and the right of the Mahanth to manage the institution is a fundamental right which cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and the right of the Mahanth to manage the Mutt and its properties is unquestionable. If the Mahanth resorts to either mismanagement or renders himself unfit to be a Mahanth, then the statute prescribes the procedure for removal of the Mahanth and order for appointment of a new Mahanth or to make temporary arrangements or to frame a scheme. Without resorting to said statutory procedure, the 2 nd respondent had no authority to direct the Executive Officer to take/assume control of the Mutt and the said action is violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution of India and thus the impugned order is totally unsustainable. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pavani Sridhar Rao v. Govt. of A.P. , [ (1996) 8 SCC 298 ] , Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P. , [ (1996) 8 SCC 705 ] He also relied on the judgment of Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi in W.P(PIL) No. 231 of 2020, Writ Petitions No. 5105 of 2019 and 806 of 2021. 5. of A.P. , [ (1996) 8 SCC 298 ] , Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P. , [ (1996) 8 SCC 705 ] He also relied on the judgment of Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi in W.P(PIL) No. 231 of 2020, Writ Petitions No. 5105 of 2019 and 806 of 2021. 5. The 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments filed counter stating that in fact, a complaint with regard to encroachment of lands endowed with the institutions in Twin Cities has come up before the Hon'ble Lokayuktha and after furnishing the required particulars and based on the observation made by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha in its order dated 26.08.2009, during the enquiry, the 2nd respondent had thought of keeping such institutions, under direct supervision of the Department by placing the nearby Executive Officers/Managers in additional charge. Therefore, the impugned order was passed for better administration of the institution. As stated by petitioner, Sri Udasin Mutt, Hussanee Alam, Hyderabad is endowed with vast landed property during the Nizam's Rule and it is a fact that the successive Mahanths who were appointed to the institution were managing the affairs of the Mutt. 5.1. The said institution is having landed property to the extent of Acs.540-30 Gts. in various survey numbers situated at Kukatpally (V). It is also a fact that the said lands were leased out to M/s Indian Detonators Limited and I.D.L. Chemical Limited long back for a period of 99 years. Sri Arundas Udaseen has been recognized as Mahanth of Sri Udasin Mutt, Hussainee Alam, Hyderabad by proceedings dated 25.11.2006. He assumed charge, managing the Mutt and its affairs as on date. It is also a fact that having come to notice that leased land is not in possession of the lessee and transferred to M/s Gulf Oil Corporation Limited and that lessee has not protected the leased property and allowed conversion of about Acs.9-00 Guntas as burial ground, petitioner had moved eviction proposals before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad in O.A. No.21 of 2008, under Section 83 of the Act against M/s Gulf Oil Corporation. It is also a fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad did not proceed with enquiry as there is no saving clause as is Section 87 and then petitioner rushed to this Court in Writ Petition No.9681 of 2008 and obtained order for adjudication of the matter by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and that the said proceedings are still pending for enquiry and adjudication. 5.2. It is stated, impugned proceedings were issued at the instance of the observation made by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha during the enquiry in a complaint made before him. In-charge arrangements are made to as many as 32 institutions and petitioner himself accepts that Mutt under his management is at Sl.No.26 in the said proceedings and by this, it can be said that either this respondent or the 3rd respondent have not wantonly or wilfully acted in such a way as to deprive the rights of petitioner Mahanth. Moreover, the Executive Officer has been appointed to the 'Mutt' for better Management and protection of properties. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, on the other hand, places reliance on the order of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in Jampani Trilokeswari v. Dharmadaya Tope , [ 2012(1) ALD 464 ] and submits that appointment of a Fit Person takes place only when the religious or charitable institution or any property held by it is taken to be under the purview of the Act. The appointment of a Fit Person for administration of such properties is only a ministerial act. 7. The main argument of petitioner is that State has no authority to appoint Executive Officer to look after the affairs of Mutt. In this regard, they place reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P(PIL) No. 231 of 2020, wherein the Division Bench declared that State has no authority or jurisdiction or entitlement in law to appoint an Executive Officer in respect of the Mutt by considering the provisions of the Act. The said matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP Nos. 1538-1540 of 2023 and the same were also dismissed by order dated 27.01.2023. The said matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP Nos. 1538-1540 of 2023 and the same were also dismissed by order dated 27.01.2023. In the said judgment, the Division Bench held that the successive jeeyars are the trustees of the Ahobilam Devasthanam and since the government cannot appoint an Executive Officer for Ahobilam Mutt, it has no power to appoint an Executive Officer for Ahobilam Temple by treating it separate from the Mutt. Appointing an Executive Officer for temple which is a part of the Mutt, is violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution of India, as the same affects Jeeyars / Mathadipathis’ right of administration. The facts and circumstances in the said case are not applicable to the present case for, petitioner Mahanth himself was appointed as such by proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.11.2006. Without challenging the said proceedings at any prior point of time, now, petitioner cannot argue that State has no power to appoint Executive Officer and they have no role in the administration of Mutt. 8. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Endowments draws attention of this Court to Section 8 of the Act which deals with Powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner. Sub-section (2) states that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred on him and perform the functions entrusted to him by or under this Act in respect of such institutions or endowments in the State as are included in the lists published under clause (a), clause (d) and clause (e) of Section 6. Further, Section 29 deals with appointment and duties of Executive Officer. It reads as under: “29. Appointment and duties of Executive Officer:- There shall be an Executive Officer or every Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment to be appointed, by the Government in the case of institutions and Endowments having income of rupees one crore and above and by the Commissioner in the case of other Institutions and Endowments included in the lists published under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6. In respect of charitable or religious institutions or endowment having income of less than rupees two lakhs per annum and included in the list published under clause (c) of Section 6, it shall not be necessary to appoint an Executive Officer. In respect of charitable or religious institutions or endowment having income of less than rupees two lakhs per annum and included in the list published under clause (c) of Section 6, it shall not be necessary to appoint an Executive Officer. The cadre of Executive Officers to be appointed under this section for the respective institutions on the basis of the income of the institution or endowment shall be as may be prescribed: Provided that, where there is no Executive Officer in respect of any Charitable or Religious Institute or Endowment, the trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees or any employee of any institution or Endowment where the income exceeds Rs.2 lakhs, but is less than Rs. 25 lakhs per annum, duly authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and discharge duties of an Executive Officer. Provided further that it shall be competent for the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer to any institution having income of less than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum if there are substantial immovable properties to the institution or if he is satisfied that such appointment is necessary in the interest of better administration of the institution or for any other reason to be recorded in writing.” 9. As could be seen from the material on record, petitioner Mutt is endowed with vast landed property during Nizam’s Rule and successive Mahanths who were appointed to the institution were managing the affairs of the Mutt. As also admitted by petitioner, the Mutt has landed property to the extent of Acs.540.30 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Kukatpally Village and the same was leased out to M/s Indian Detonators Limited and IDL, Chemical Limited long back for a period of 99 years. Having come to notice that leased land was transferred to M/s Gulf Oil Corporation Limited and that the lessee has not protected leased property and in fact allowed conversion of about Acs.9.00 as burial ground, petitioner also moved eviction proposals before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department. In those circumstances, based on the observations made by the Hon’ble Lokayukta dated 26.08.2009 with regard to properties of certain temples, the impugned order came to be passed for better management of the Mutt, hence, the same cannot be found fault with. In those circumstances, based on the observations made by the Hon’ble Lokayukta dated 26.08.2009 with regard to properties of certain temples, the impugned order came to be passed for better management of the Mutt, hence, the same cannot be found fault with. Even as per the petitioner, the power to appoint an Executive Officer in respect of a Mutt can only be in the situations covered by Section 55 of the Act. Under the said provision, a scheme of administration framed the Dharmika Parishad which was constituted under G.O.Ms.No. 1034, dated 01.10.2009 may provide for appointment of an Executive Officer in respect of a Mutt and that too when it comes to the conclusion that the affairs of the Mutt and its properties are being mismanaged, etcetera. In the case on hand, it is evident that some extent of land of petitioner Mutt was mismanaged and when it was transferred to M/s Gulf Oil Corporation Limited, lessees approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 31893 of 2011 which was dismissed and the said order was confirmed in Civil Appeals No. 7759-7760 of 2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 13.09.2022 and pursuant to the said order, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments delivered possession of schedule lands to petitioner Mutt on 15.10.2022. These are all indicative of the fact that land of Mutt were mismanaged which warranted appointment of Executive Officer. Hence, the order impugned through which the 2 nd respondent directed the 4 th respondent to take / assume complete charge of petitioner Mutt cannot be found fault with in view of the proviso to Section 28 of the Act. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pavani Sridhara Rao’s case (supra), wherein, in the absence of any material on record to show that at the relevant point of time, the temple was mismanaged or there was any reason for invoking the power under the 1966 Act, it was held that the impugned order was passed without application of mind there being no factual basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the competent authority. As per Section 27 (2)(a) of 1966 Act, it was provided that in case of any charitable or religious institution or endowment, whose annual income was not less than Rs.10,000/- but did not exceed Rs.2 lacs, the Commissioner could appoint an Executive Officer for discharging the duties conferred on him by or under that Act.’ But here in this case, it is clear, Acs.9.00 of Mutt was mismanaged by the lessees. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to this case. 11. In the judgment in Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as per Section 47 of the Act, administration and management of Mutt are vested in Mahant and both aspects are blended and cannot be detached. However, for the reasons stated supra, in the interest of Mutt which was endowed with vast landed property during Nizam’s Rule, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 2 nd respondent had rightly appointed the 4 th respondent Executive Officer. 12. Further, in Jampani Trilokeswari’s case (supra), the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that ‘it may be true that a Fit Person is appointed, in exercise of power under Section 29 of the Act and that Section 90 thereof does not take in its fold the orders passed under Section 29 of the Act, for analysing the remedy of Appeal. The fact, however, remains that appointment of a Fit Person takes place, only when the religious or charitable institution or any property held by it is taken to be under the purview of the Act. In the case on hand, the subject Mutt is under the purview of the Act, hence, on this ground also, appointment of a Fit Person cannot be questioned. 13. For all the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 14. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.