Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

1. Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, Smt. Anne Devi Subhashini, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 (W.P.No.6278 of 2023), Sri V.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Kolla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5& 6 (W.P.No.15869 of 2022), Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities.

2. The issue in both the writ petitions is common; therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed inW.P.No.6278 of 2023 are taken for reference.

3. Challenge in the Writ PetitionNo.6278 of 2023 is to the proceedings of the 3rdrespondent making a recommendation to the 2ndrespondent to grant exemption to the 6threspondent Sangham, from the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act"), in terms of the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021. W.P.No.15869 of 2022 is filed for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to take control of the Mandapam which is under unauthorized control of the 6threspondent and facilitate the petitioner to construct the quarters.

4. It is contended that the petitioner is an Archaka of the 5threspondent - temple. Prior to the petitioner, his father and forefathers were rendering services to the 5threspondent - temple.

5. It is contended that in 1764 AD, the then Zamindar Sri Rajamanuri Peda Venkata Krishnarao, donated an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land for the construction of the 5threspondent's temple, Sri Uma Maheshwara Swamy Vari Temple. In 1922, a survey was conducted by the Government to demarcate the boundaries of the property. In 1948, the then successor to the Zamindar family, late Manuri Venkata Narayana, granted permission to the petitioner's grandfather, who was Archaka to construct a house on the southern side of the temple and reside in the second house. Although permission was granted to construct the house, they were unable to do so and have been living in a tin shed. In 1971, members of the Arya Vysya Community formed the 6threspondent Sangham and constructed a Mandapam on the southern side of the temple, naming it Gnana Mandir, where the petitioner's forefather was allowed to construct a house for residential purposes. The said Mandapam was put to misuse by the members of the 6threspondent. The petitioner's father had requested permission to construct a house on the first floor of the Mandapam. The 4threspondent had recommended the 2ndrespondent for the grant of permission to the petitioner to construct the house. However, there has been no action on the petitioner's representations seeking permission to construct a house. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Mandapam is being used by the Members of the 6threspondent for commercial purposes and that they derive income from it. Without granting the permission to the petitioner, the respondents have, however, allowed the 6th respondent to construct a commercial complex on top of the Mandapam. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15869 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondent to prevent unauthorized activities of the Arya Vysya Sangham.

6. It is contented that the 5threspondent temple i.e., Sri Uma Maheswara Swami is the main deity and the other deities, i.e., Subrahmanyeswara Swamy, Vigneswara Swamy, Kalabhairava Swamy, and Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavaru,etc., are sub-deities. These are under the single trustee's administrative control. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavaru is a sub-deity and is not an independently recognized temple. And the petitioner is not under the control of the 6threspondent. Additionally, he is rendering archaka service to the 5threspondent templeas well as to all other deities located in the premises.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide the impugned proceedings, exemption has been granted to the 6threspondent in terms of G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021. It is contented that the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavaru, being the sub-deity located in the premises of the 5th respondent, is not an independent temple under the management of the 6th respondent; therefore, granting exemption to the 6th respondent under G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021 is without jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that the subject 5threspondent temple is published under Section 6c(ii) of the Act with the main deity being Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy. If the 6th respondent is allowed to handle the affairs of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple, it would lead to serious lapses. The impugned proceedings would recognize Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple as an independent temple whereas it is a sub-deity of the main 5th respondent temple. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021, would not apply to the Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy Temple. It is vehemently argued that the impugned proceedings would lead to the recognition of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple as an independent temple, which, on the other hand, is a sub-deity of the main temple, Sri Uma Maheshwari Swamy Temple. The petitioner's contention is that the Sri Uma Maheshwari Swamy Temple was established in the 18th century. The Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple was established in 1959, and renovations were made in 1970.It is further contended that, from the beginning, all the temples were under one independent temple. It is only after the 6th respondent temple came into the picture that efforts are being made to recognize the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple as a different temple from the 5th respondent temple. Thus, seeks set aside of the impugned proceedings.

8. The Commissioner of Endowments, the 2nd respondent, filed counter affidavit stating that both the temples i.e., Sri Uma Maheswari Swamy temple and Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple are not one and the same, both of them are distinct and separate. After establishment of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple in 1905, adjacent to the 5th respondent temple, the 6th respondent Sangham established in 1941, the maintenance of the temple was entrusted to the 6th respondent Sangham and Sangham alone is maintaining the temple. On the request of the petitioner, the 6th respondent has allowed the petitioner to perform pujas in Sri VasaviKanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple on payment of consolidated wages. The petitioner is performing archakatvam at 5th respondent temple and is enjoying the land of Ac.10.00 cents endowed by Zamindars in favour of the temple. The endowment authorities have never appointed the petitioner as poojari in Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple. It is further stated that the 5th respondent temple and Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple are being managed and administered separately and there is no commonness in them. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent granting exemption to the 6th respondent are valid and the petitioner has no locus to challenge the same.

9. The 5threspondent filed its counter, contending that the Archakas of the 5th respondent temple are using the Archaka quarter situated on northern side of the temple. The 6th respondent Sangham constructed a mandapam long ago in the premises of the temple on southern side and had been using it for religious discourses. AndSri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple was constructed long ago, more than a century back in the premises of 5th respondent. The temple was initially managed by founders of the said temple. Thereafter, it is being managed by the 6threspondent with their own funds. The day to day expenditure of the temple including thesalaries are being managed by the 6threspondent by obtaining specific budget sanction from 3rdrespondent every year. That is further stated that the proceedings under Section 43 of the Act are also passed separately there is a separate register being maintained under Section 43 of the Act in respect of the properties of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple. It is stated that the fact of separate registration of the temple under Section 43 of the Act recognizes the existence of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple as independent temple and is not concerned with the 5th respondent.On the issue of grant of exemption to 6th respondent temple by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the said proceedings. It is further reiterated that the 5th respondent temple and Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple are both two independent temples having two separate registrations under Section 43 of the Act.

10. The 6th respondent filed its counter, contending that in 1905, the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple was constructed. In 1957, there was a renovation, and the subject temple is separate from the 5th respondent temple. It is further contended that the writ petitioner went to the extent of making uncharitable comments against the deity in that connection, a crime was also registered against the petitioner by the police. The petitioner has no vested right to seek the enforcement of his right to render pujas and sevas in the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari temple. It is contended that the petitioner has no jurisdiction to challenge the proceedings of the 2nd respondent. It is thus contented that the 5th respondent temple is separate from the Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavari Temple. Temple is under the management of the 6th respondent for the last 100 years. In respect of the exemption granted by the Government to the 6th respondent, the petitioner should not have any grievance andhe has no locus to challenge the same.

11. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent has been filed in W.P.No.15869 of 2022, wherein it has been stated that the occupation of the Kalyanamandapam by the 6th respondent Sangham is unauthorized and steps are being taken to evict the Sangham from the encroachment of the temple property in accordance with the procedure.

12. The learned Senior Counsel Sri V.Venugopal appearing for Sri Kolla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 (W.P.No.15869 of 2022), in support of his contentions, relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.9002 of 2025, 18777 of 2015, 18109 of 2018 and 16359 of 2023.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written submissions titled "Note on Arguments".

                  The gist of the same are:

                  "6. CONCLUSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT PETITIONER

                  1. Admittedly both the Gyana Mandiram (MANDAPAM) and Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru are located within the TEMPLE premises.

                  2. When it is found by the Endowment Authorities that the control of the SANGAM over Gyana mandiram (MANDAPAM) situated within the TEMPLE Premises is illegal and unauthorized and steps are being taken to evict the SANGAM from the MANDAPAM, it is not know how the Authorities are justifying calling Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru as a separate temple, located on the side of the main deity Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy where Parvathi Ammavaru is on the other side and all the three Deities are located in a common mandapam, single dwajastambham and only one entrance;

                  3. When the occupation of SANGAM over Gyana Mandiram is illegal, the independent claim of SANGAM over Sir Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru, both located within the TEMPLE property is equally illegal.

                  4. The TEMPLE that was notified under section 6(c)(ii) of the Endowments Act consists of all the deities including utsava mandapams, appurtenant structures and land as defined at section 2(27) of the Endowments Act.

                  5. Thus even if the SANGAM contributes for construction of Sri KanyakaparameswariAmmaru in the TEMPLE premise as the part of its Religious Charity as defined at section 2(21) of the Act, the SANGAM will not get any right or control over the same and cannot call it as an independent temple.

                  6. Section 145 of the AP Endowment Act 1987 recognizes only adoption or amalgamation of notified institutions, but not for partition of the Deities.

                  7. Even from the perusal of the Section 43 Register submitted by the SANGAM, it only discloses about the Religious charity activities that was said to have undertaken by it at the TEMPLE premises for Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru. But that does not create any independent right for the SAMGAM over the charity it haveundertake even if it is admitted.

                  8. The said Section 43 Register of the SANGAM clearly mentions about the properties of the SANGAM where Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru is not found. The details of Sri KanyakaparameswariAmmavaru are mentioned as its Religious Charity activities, which itself is clear that the assets of SANGAMis different and its Religious charity is different. Thus mere mentioning about the religious charity activities undertaken by the SANGAM at TEMPLE premises will not entitle the SANGAM to claim right over Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru located within the TEMPLE premises.

                  9. If the said proposition that, those who undertake Religious charity at a notified TEMPLE would be given Right and Control over the said TEMPLE to the extent it undertakes Religious Charity, is accepted, those rich Devotees / charitable institutions will get right over the notified TEMPLES in the State to the extent of charitable activity they undertake, which the AP Endowments Act No.30 of 1987 never provided for.

                  10. Petitioner being the Archaka was permitted to enjoy the benefits over the land during the life time of his father, the said land was also under unauthorized occupation of third parties. The Endowment authorities though aware of the said fact has not taken any steps for eviction and did not conducted auction of lease hold rights till today.

                  11. The petitioner is working as Archaka since the year 1986 at the TEMPLE performing poojas and other religious services to all the deities including Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Ammavaru.

                  12. The petitioner who is residing in the TEMPLE premises has every right to construct quarter to reside with the permission of the departmental authorities.

                  13. Since the petitioner questioned the unauthorized acts of the SANGAM in proposing to illegally construct additional flour over the GyariaMandiram, the dispute started.

                  14. Till then there was no dispute and no complaint was made against him with regard to his services.

                  15. The petitioner being the Archaka cannot be deprived of his right to do services to all the Deities in the TEMPLE premises and to reside in the TEMPLE premises by constructing residential quarter with the permission of the Authorities.

                  16. The Endowment Authorities having found that the occupation of Gyana Mandiram by the SANGAM in the TEMPLE premises is unauthorized and illegal, in the same analogy independent claim of SANGAM in the TEMPLE premises in respect of Sri Kanyakaparameswari Ammavaru is also equally illegal and unauthorized."

14. Considered the submissions.

15. The challenge in the writ petition No.6278 of 2023 is to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent granting exemption to the 6th respondent from the provisions of the Act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 05.11.2021.

16. The petitioner one hand claims that the Sangham permitted him to construct of a residential quarter on the first floor of the Mandapam having granted such a permission cannot make use of the building for its use by making further constructions in breach of the promise made to him depriving him from making a residential quarter. On the other hand, it is also contended that the Sangham is unlawfully occupying property (Mandapam) owned by the 5threspondent temple. This Court is of the view that the petitioner who is Archaka of 5th respondent temple has no locus to challenge the exemption granted to the 6th respondent Sangham, hence cannot maintain the writ petition.

17. If the petitioner is claiming any right for construction of the residential quarter within the premises of the temple, placing reliance on the proceedings or grants issued in the year 1922, the same will have no enforceability, having regard to the provisions of Sections 34 and 144 of the Act. The endowment authorities in their counter affidavit have stated that the appropriate proceedings would be initiated against the 6th respondent in accordance with the procedure under the Act. After filing of the said counter affidavit, the impugned proceedings (W.P.No.6278 of 2023) have been passed granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of the Act.

18. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the proceedings issued in favour of the 6th respondent. Reliance in this regard is placed on a common order passed by me in similar circumstances in W.P.Nos.9002 of 2025, 18777 of 2015, 18109 of 2018 and 16359 of 2023.

19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.