(Prayer: Appeal Under Section against orders to set aside the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur passed in OA No. 42 of 2001 dt. 25-8-2009 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CMAMP 365 OF 2011

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Pursuance to the Notification dt. 3-8-2000 whereby the Yogananda Ashramam, Vinukonda, Guntur District was notified as a Public Religious Institution U/s. 6 (c)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 pending disposal of the Appeal and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 1167 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in CMAMP.No. 365 of 2011 in CMA.No. 169 of 2011)

1. The Appeal, filed under Section 88 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act 30/1987”), challenges the order dated 25-08-2009 in O.A.No.42 of 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur.

2. The Appellants, petitioners in O.A. No.42 of 2001, filed the petition against the respondent under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act 30/1987. They sought a declaration that Yogananda Ashramam, Vinukonda, is neither a Religious nor a Charitable Institution, nor an Endowment, nor any other type of Institution covered under the Act 30/1987.

3. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Deputy Commissioner.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

                  i) The 1st petitioner‟s grand-parents established an Ashramam named “Yogananda Ashramam” at Vinukonda, Guntur District, in honour of their second son Venkateswarlu, also known as Venkateswara Dasu, who lived a saintly life and followed the sanyasi dharma, in two acres out of the land purchased in the name of his grand-mother Mahalaxmamma. This property was dedicated to the Ashramam, and a trust was formed with her as the Managing Trustee. The family members then managed the trust as Settler Trustee through a Settlement Deed dated 01.03.1943, recorded under Document No. 728/1943. Additionally, she executed two Wills on 02-03-1963 and 24-12- 1966 during her lifetime.

                  ii) During the lifetime of the founders, a statue of Sri Yogananda Narsimhaswamy was installed, along with the arrangement of the Bala Devi mud idol. The Ashramam includes within its premises a hall with Srikrishna Mandiram and Ammavari Mandiram. This property houses the samadhis of Chevuri Hanumaiah, Mahalaxmamma, and their son Venkateswara Dasu. One family member, Venkateswara Dasu, attained Jeeva Samadhi, and it is believed that through him, the family grew well and prospered. The original structures were mud terraced middle domestic houses. Over time, additional rooms and 15 sheds were added to facilitate the maintenance of the trust, ensuring that it was not burdensome. All the buildings were originally personal domestic houses. Family members, up to the present generation, regularly look after and actively participate in the functions of Ashramam.

                  iii) There has been no establishment of any charity or endowment for any purpose whatsoever. It is even less plausible that any donation or charity has been created for a public purpose. Over the past sixty years, since the settlement deed dated 01.03.1943, there has been no alteration. By any measure of interpretation, the settlement deed does not fall within the institutions as defined or described in the Act 30/1987. Furthermore, the notification itself is legally invalid.

5. The respondent‟s counter averments:

                  i) The Inspector from the Endowment Department in Narasaraopet submitted a report dated 15.08.2000. He stated that Mahalaxmamma, wife of Hanumaiah, executed a settlement deed on 01.03.1943, registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office in Vinukonda, granting absolute rights to the Ashramam but not to any individual. Currently, the site is valued at around Rs.50.00 lakhs, and the petitioners aim to claim the income generated from it as if it were their own property. The idols of Sri Swamyvaru in the Ashramam were gifted and donated by the public, who freely enter the Ashramam without objections or interference from the petitioners or their family members. The public also come to pay their vows to Sri Swamyvaru. The Ashramam is recognised as a place of religious charity under Section 2 and sub-Section 21 of the Act 30/1987.

                  ii) The respondent further stated in his counter that the petitioners filed W.P.No.14348/2001, showing the Commissioner of Endowments Department, the Assistant Commissioner of Guntur, and the Deputy Commissioner of Guntur as respondents No.1 to 3. They requested a writ or order declaring the 1st respondent's action, specifically, the notification issued in Rc.No.J3/11109/2000 dated 13.07.2000 regarding “Yogananda Ashramam” at Sl.No.1551 among the list of religious institutions under Section 6(c)(II) of the Act 30/1987, to be void. They also sought a restraining order preventing the respondents from interfering with the administration of the institution by the petitioners and their family members. Additionally, on 16.07.2001, they obtained a status quo order in W.P.M.P.No.17935/2001.

6. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

7. The learned Deputy Commissioner, after examining the competing arguments, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners have filed this appeal.

8. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the appellants, presented arguments in the appeal. It is submitted that the petitioners originate from the founders of the subject Yogananda Ashramam, Vinukonda, Guntur District. The institution is an old Ashramam, built approximately 75 years ago, and the petitioners trace their rights to their forefathers. It is stated that the Ashramam was managed by the 1st petitioner‟s grand-mother, Mahalaxmamma, who constructed it with her own funds in Vinukonda village. She also previously performed pooja services for the idols. From the date of construction, the institution has been managed sequentially by the 1st petitioner‟s grand-mother and, subsequently, by their family members as founders. The father of the 1st petitioner was also declared as hereditary trustee of the Ashramam, and, according to that declaration, the petitioners' family, by virtue of being the former hereditary trustee and declared founder trustees, holds those rights.

                  i) It is stated that the appeal should be allowed because the appellants no longer qualify as heirs of the registered Ashramam following the settlement deed dated 01.03.1943. The Vinukonda Ashramam in Guntur was established in 1940 when the second son of Mahalakshmamma, namely, Sri Venkateswarlu, adopted the Sanyasi Dharma. This was the original reason for founding the Ashramam. It also involved managing maintenance and constructing the residences. All these arrangements were governed by private rules established by Mahalakshmamma under the settlement deed dated 01.03.1943, which were entirely at her discretion and did not have any public character.

                  ii) The learned senior counsel further argued that the approach taken by the Deputy Commissioner was fundamentally flawed, misinterpreting the evidence and documents presented to suggest that the Ashramam was not private and that the idols within it were not solely a family affair, having no connection to private ownership. The original structures are built of mud, are terraced, and have a domestic character. On 03.08.2000, a notification was issued under Section 6(c)(II) of Act 30/1987 enlisting the said Yogananda Ashramam as a Hindu Religious Institution.

                  iii) When the petitioners learned about the Gazette notification dated 03.08.2000 enlisting the said Ashramam as a public ashramam and proposing to appoint a non-bereaved trustee to the Yogananda Ashramam, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14348/2001 for a writ of mandamus to declare the notification issued in Rc.No.J3/11109/2000, dated 13.07.2000, in so far as it relates to and includes „Yogananda Ashramam‟ at Sl. No.1551 among the list of Religious institutions published, classified, and notified under Section 6(c)(II) of the Act 30/1987 as void and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the administration of the said institution by the petitioners and their family members, and obtained a status quo order dated 16.07.2001 in WPMP No.17935/2001.

                  iv) Subsequently, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner of the Endowments Department in Guntur by filing O.A.No.42/2001. As a result, W.P.No.14348/2001 was closed following the filing of the OA by the petitioners. On 25.07.2006, an Advocate Commissioner‟s report was submitted during the enquiry into O.A., indicating that Venkateswara Swamy's old residence had mud walls. There are three samadhis in one room: the Jeeva Samadhi of Venkateswara Swamy, along with the Narasimhaswamy mandiram, Krishna mandiram, and Bala Devi mandiram, all in a domestic house pattern. There are no hundies or bells in the mandirams. Additionally, there is no superstructure over the roof of these mandirams.

                  v) They argue that the Ashramam, established during Venkateswarlu‟s lifetime, does not exhibit the qualities of a religious institution or a temple. Entry is restricted without the ashramam's permission. According to the petitioners, the rituals conducted during his lifetime or after his jeeva samadhi primarily reflected humanitarian values. However, issuing a Gazette notification without prior notice or the founder's consent is illegal.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Deputy Commissioner of the Endowment Department, arguing that the Ashramam was of a public nature and opposing the appeal. He contends that the Ashramam is a religious institution, evidenced by the structure of the samadhis and the practices conducted there. There are Narasimha Swamy mandiram, Krishna mandiram, and Aradhanotsavams of Sachitananda Venkatweswara Swamy being performed. The public and disciples of the said Guruvu are also participating in the Aradhanotsavams. The land of the Ashramam is valued at Rs.50.00 lakhs. The current occupiers have built a shopping complex with 17 shops, aiming to profit by misusing and mismanaging the institution's property and by infringing upon the wishes of the founder.

                  i) They have collected donations from the public to support the maintenance of the ashramam. The Ashramam is a public religious institution, with public worship, and the public offers offerings in the mandiram. The structures in the ashramam were built with public donations. On 27.05.2000, the Inspector, Endowments Department, Narasaraopet, submitted a report requesting to publish the Gazette under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act 30/1987. He states that the Deputy Commissioner held an extensive discussion and ultimately concluded that the structure of the Samadhi and Mandirams, as well as the practices followed at the Ashramam, indicate that it is a religious institution.

10. Considering the extensive submissions made by the learned counsel, the only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the Asharamam was a public ashramam, as alleged by the respondent, or a family ashramam, as contended by the appellants.

11. The issue must be determined based on the facts established in the case, and it is not easy to define a specific test or tests. It is clear that, in the absence of documents or revenue entries to prove its origin, the decision must depend solely on circumstantial evidence regarding the nature of the ashramam's use.

12. Before any discussion on merits begins, it is well established that under the Act 30/1987, the respondent issued a Gazette Publication under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act 30/1987 in Rc.No.J3/11109/2000 dated 03.08.2000. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:

                  “6. Preparation and publication of list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income:-

                  The Commissioner shall prepare separately and publish in the prescribed manner, a list of-

                  (a) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments; or

                  (ii) the religious institutions and endowments other than maths; whose annual income as calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution under section 65 [exceeds rupees twenty five lakhs];

                  (b) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments;

                  (ii) the religious institutions and endowments, other than maths; whose annual income calculated as aforesaid [exceeds rupees two lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty five lakhs];

                  (c) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments; or

                  (ii) the religious institutions and endowments other than maths not falling under clause (a) or clause (b);

                  (d) the maths irrespective of the income;

                  (e) the Dharmadayam irrespective of the income;

                  Provided that the Commissioner may alter the classification assigned to an institution or endowment in the list and enter the same in the appropriate list in case the annual income of such institution or endowment calculated as aforesaid exceeds or falls below the limits specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) for three consecutive years.

                  Provided further that the Government shall be competent to fix-up parameters for the purpose of publication of new Institutions from time to time.”

13. In the present case, Exs.P1 to P9 clearly demonstrate the nature of the ashramam established. It is well established that whether an ashramam functioning in a religious capacity depends on whether it is a matter of public or private concern. This depends on how the legal concept of an ashramam and a deity, as well as other private tombs, are applied, based on the facts proved in each case. Since this is the fundamental distinction between a public or private ashramam, one key test to determine the nature of an ashramam is to see whether the management of the property is controlled by a member of the public or by the founder or their descendants.

14. The dispute in this case concerns whether the Ashramam of Venkateswara Swamy, Jeeva Samadhi, can be regarded as a religious institution under the Act. Before any discussion on the merits, it is better to have a glance at the relevant provisions of law.

15. The Act 30/1987 used to govern the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1968. Sub Section (3) of Section 1 of the Act reads as follows:

                  “(3) It applies to –

                  (a) all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954 (Central Act 29 of 1954).

                  Explanation: - In this clause, the expression "public charitable institutions and endowments" shall include every charitable institution or endowment the administration of which is for the time being vested in any department of Government, or Civil Court, Zilla Praja Parishad, Municipality or other local authority, or any company, society, organisation, institution or other person;

                  (b) All Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether registered or not in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

16. It is not even argued by anyone that the Ashramam is a religious endowment. Therefore, the controversy boils down to the question of whether the ashramam fits the description of a religious institution. The first word occurring in the definition of 'religious institution' as outlined in Section 2(23) which reads as under:

                  “(23) „Religious institution‟ means a math, temple or specific endowment and includes a Brindavan, Samadhi or any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose;

                  i) The next word appearing in the definition is 'temple', which is, in turn, defined under Sub-section (27) of Section 2 of the Act, as follows:

                  “(27) „Temple‟ means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and includes sub-shrines, utsava mandapas, tanks and other necessary appurtenant structures and land;

                  Explanation I:- A place of worship where the public or a section thereto have unrestricted access or declared as a private place of worship by court or other authority but notwithstanding any such declaration, public or a section thereof has unrestricted access to such place and includes a temple which is maintained within the residential premises, if offerings or gifts are received by the person managing the temple from the public or a section thereof at the time of worship or other religious function shall be deemed to be a temple.”

17. Another factor to consider is the nature of the right of the worshippers, that is to say, whether the right to worship in the ashramam is an exercise of right rather than a matter of concession. The Advocate Commissioner‟s report in this case clearly states that public access is restricted at the entrance of the Ashramam. However, it has been proven that the intention of the testator or founder was to dedicate the Ashramam solely for the benefit of family members or their descendants, making it a private institution.

18. The Deputy Commissioner did not even mention in his order that the Ashramam is a temple. The question before this Court is whether „Yogananda Ashramam‟ falls within the definition of a religious institution as outlined in the Act 30/1987. A structure resembling a mandiram was built over the Jeeva Samadhi of Venkateswara Swamy @ Venkateswara Dasu. In fact, Narasimha Swamy and Krishna mandirams were constructed alongside the Samadhi, as was a mud idol of Bala Devi.

19. Although the definition of Hindu Religious Institution has been expanded under the Act 30/1987, the fundamental characteristic „Hindu religious‟ still generally remains the same. In this case, it has been established before the Deputy Commissioner that the devotees of the Ashramam, including individuals from outside, clearly demonstrated this. P.W.2 was a third party besides the family members in the O.A. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the Ashramam is a Hindu Religious Institution or a Temple.

20. In other items mentioned in the definition of a religious institution is a specific endowment. This expression is defined u/s 2 (25) of the Act as under:

                  “(25) „Specific Endowment‟ means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a charitable or religious institution or for the performance of any other charity, religious or otherwise;

                  Explanation-I:- Two or more endowments of the nature specified in this clause the administration of which is vested in a common trustee or which are managed under a common scheme settled shall be construed as a single specific endowment for the purpose of this Act.”

21. The key requirement is that money or property must have been dedicated for a religious or charitable purpose. In this case, it is on record that the Inspector, Endowments Department, Narasaraopet, in his report in Lr. No. 69/2000, dated 15.05.2000, stated that the value of the site is approximately Rs.50.00 lakhs. There are also 17 shops established with the intention of misusing and mismanaging the institution's property, as well as violating the wishes of the founder according to the settlement deed. No one claimed that any property or money was endowed to the Ashramam, let alone for any specific service or charity.

22. In fact, the Jeeva Samadhi was built on private land. No public funds were used for the Ashramam. The Jeeva Samadhi and mandirams did not own any properties, and his disciples, who established the Ashramam, are mainly known for their devotion rather than for raising funds or creating endowments. It is a different matter that, after the Ashramam gained prominence, substantial offerings were made and significant development occurred. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a specific endowment.

23. The appellants further contends that, in light of the settled position in a decision of this Court in Nallamothu Veeraiah and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, (W.P.No.10283 of 2021 dated 22.11.2021), the Ashramam/temple structure can only be considered under Sections 43 and 44 of the Act 30/1987, and in Sri VVVRK Yechendra, Rajah Venkatagiri Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary to the Government of Revenue (Endowments Department)( 1986 SCC OnLine AP 223), a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under:

                  “6. On this letter action was initiated and the said temple was enlisted. It is an admitted fact that till the date of the publication of the notification, the petitioner has been treating and managing the temple as a private temple.

                  Xxxx xxxxx xxxxx

                  8. There is no express provision in the section obliging the Commissioner to issue notice to the trustee of a private temple before enlisting the temple as a public temple. But having regard to the consequences of the notification under Section 6 (c)(ii), it cannot be doubted that it affects the civil rights of trustees like the petitioner. It is well settled that when civil rights of a citizen are affected by the proposed action under provisions of Act, compliance of the principles of natural justice is implicit, unless this requirement is specifically taken away by the statute itself. In Smt. Menaka Gandhi V. Union of India, the passport of the petitioner was impounded without notice to the petitioner as there was no provision in the Passport Act requiring the authorities to give notice before impounding the passport, the Supreme Court observed:

                  “The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of quality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a broading omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 roust answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive: otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied”.

                  Xxxxx xxxxxx xxxx

                  10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue, I am of the view that the notification issued by the second respondent is illegal and it is accordingly quashed.”

24. In Miryala Narayana Vs. State of Andhra Prades(2022 SCC OnLine AP 179), a learned Single Judge of this Court observed as under:

                  “2. The petitioner contends that the structure which is now being recognized as a temple does not have any of the characteristics and features of a temple. He also submits that, in view of the judgment of this court dated 22.11.2021 in W.P.No.10283 of 2021, the said structure/temple can only be recognized and registered initially under Section 43 of the Act, 1987 and subsequently published under Section 6 (c) of the Act, 1987 after appropriate notice has been given to all the affected persons. He submits that the said procedure has not been followed in the present case. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

                  5. In these circumstances, the impugned proceedings R.Dis.No.J1/1102/2021 dated 18.12.2021 are set aside, leaving it open to respondents to take such further steps as may be permissible under law for registration of the said structure/temple after due notice to the petitioner and all other affected parties, as laid down in the aforesaid judgment of this Court.”

25. The single Bench of this Court examined the issue from another angle, and it was pointed out, any further decision taken by the Commissioner shall only be after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In W.P.No.10283 of 2021 dated 22.11.2021, a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:

                  “19……………………………….The said provision does not set out any procedure for assessing the annual Income of the Institution. The provision for such assessment is contained elsewhere in the Act.

                  20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Divi Kodandarama Saram and Ors., Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., while considering the question of payment of emoluments to Archakas had an occasion to consider the manner in which temples are to be categorised under Section 6 of the Endowments Act, 1987 and held as follows:

                  “3. Section 6 of the Act classifies the charitable or religious institutions and endowments and other mutts on the basis of the income and its calculation under Section 65. Section 6(a) institutions are those whose income exceeds Rs 5 lakhs and above per annum; Section 6(b) institutions are those whose income exceeds Rs 50,000 but is less than Rs 5 lakhs; and Section 6(c) institutions are other than those covered under clauses (a) and (b)………”

                  It would thus to be clear that the categorisation of an institution and publication of the institution under the relevant sub-section and sub-clause of Section 6 can be done only after there is an assessment of the income of the institution under Section 65 of the Act, 1987.

                  21. In the light of the above scheme of the Act, the registration of the Institution is to be done either under Section 43 or 44. Thereafter, the annual income of the Institution is to be assessed under various provisions of the Act. After such assessment, the Institution is to be categorised and published under Section 6 of the Act.

                  22. In the present case, there is no registration under Section 43 or 44 of the Act and publication under Section 6 has been taken up directly without notice being given to the Petitioners who are admittedly in management of the temple. For all these reasons the impugned orders have to be set aside.

                  23. The procedure to be followed for registration/publication of institutions under the Endowments Act, 1987 can be summed up as follows:

                  A) i) where an application is made under Section 43(4) of the Act, 1987, the registering authority shall issue personal notice, to such persons having interest as are within the knowledge of the registering authority and also publish a notice in the local newspapers giving, all persons having interest in the institution, an opportunity to put-forth their views and objections.

                  ii) After affording an adequate opportunity to all such persons, the registering authority shall take a decision whether the institution has to be registered or not. If a decision is taken to register the institution, the registering authority shall register the same after filling in all the necessary details required under Section 43(4) of the Act.

                  B) Where the registration is carried out under Section 44 of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed:

                  i) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner either suo motu or on such information that is given to him, shall give a report to the Commissioner, Endowments detailing the institution that requires to be registered and the names of the person or persons, who have failed to approach the competent Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Section 43 of the Act.

                  ii) Upon such information being given by the Assistant Commissioner, or being received from any other source, the Commissioner shall issue notices under Form-II to all persons, who are in default, to file an application for registration within the time given in the notice.

                  iii) The Commissioner shall also issue notices to all persons having interest in the institution either by way of personal notice or by way of publication of the notice in the local news papawers or both, giving opportunity to such persons to put-forth their views and objections on the aspect of registration as well as the details which are to be contained under Section 43(4) of the Act.

                  iv) The Trustees, persons in management and/or the persons having interest are entitled to file their objections in relation to the question of whether the said Institution is liable to be registered and/or the details that are required to be included in the register under Section 43 of the Act. They may also place such material as they deem necessary before the Commissioner. After giving adequate opportunity for all such objections to be filed, the Commissioner after considering these objections and material submitted by the objectors and after such enquiry as may be deemed fit, shall take a decision as to whether the institution is to be registered or not and the details that need to be registered under Section 43(4) of the Act.

                  v) In the event of the Commissioner determining that the institution requires to be registered, he shall issue directions to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to register the institution along with the details that need to be entered in the register under Section 43(4) of the Act.

                  vi) Upon such instructions being received, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner shall register the institution duly entering of the details required under Section 43(4) of the Act. This process shall be done at the cost of the institution.

                  C) After such registration, the income of the institution is to be assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987.

                  D) Basing upon the quantum of income assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987, the institution is to be published by the appropriate authority on the basis of the calculation done according to the income of the institution.”

26. In other words, a religious institution and a Samadhi are established or maintained for religious purposes. Since the Ashramam is built over the Jeeva Samadhi of Venkateswara Swamy, it may be considered as part of a Samadhi, which is not defined under the Act. However, this is not straight forward to understand, and it does not qualify as a religious institution unless it was established or maintained for a spiritual purpose. Therefore, the Ashramam cannot be classified as a religious institution.

27. In Gurpur Guni Venkataraya Narashima Prabhu Vs. B.G.Achia((1977) 3 SCC 17), the Honble Apex Court reiterated these very principles in the following words: The law is now well settled that “the mere fact of the public having been freely admitted to the temple cannot mean that courts should readily inter therefrom dedication to the public. The value of such a public user as evidence of dedication depends on the circumstances, which strengthen the inference that the user was in possession by right.

28. These observations are not supported by the evidence of PW1 and PW2, nor by the Advocate Commissioner‟s report, which includes both oral and documentary evidence presented in the case. The Deputy Commissioner rejected PW1's evidence but overlooked this fact and the Advocate Commissioner‟s report during the trial. This Court finds it difficult to understand how the Ashramam can be considered as a public nature under these circumstances. Additionally, the Assistant Commissioner must issue a notice and seek an explanation from the appellants before issuing the notification under Sec. 6(c)(ii) of the Act, dated 13.07.2000, vide Rc.No.J3/11109/2000. As a result, the order of  the Deputy Commissioner is both contradictory and legally unsustainable.

29. Therefore, this Court overturns the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, in O.A.No.42 of 2001 dated 25.08.2009 and allows this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed.