TEKI VENKATA RATNAM AND ORS .versusDY. COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT AND ORS.

                      TEKI VEN KAT A RA TNAM AND ORS .                                A
                                           v.                  •
-               DY. COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT AND ORS.

                                 . AUGUST 7, 2001

              [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]                           B

        Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
    Endowments Act. 1987.

          Sections /(3), 2 (22), 2(27), 43, 44, 87 and 160-Dispute regarding . C
    character and status of temple-Whether public or private temple-Held,
    Deputy Commissioner has power and jurisdiction to enquire into and decide
    whether a temple is public or private one-Even a private temple in course
    of time may gradually acquire the nature of pub7ic temple .

          Not.ice was issued for registering a particular temple under Sections 38
                                                                                      p
    & 39 of the Andhr;t Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
    Endowments Act, 1966. This was. challenged in writ petition which was
    disposed of on submission on behalf of of on. petitioners that they had been
    advised to raise dispute regarding the status of the temple-whether public or
    private-Before the Deputy Comissioner under Section 77 of the 1966" Act.          E
    Writappeal filed by petitioners against said order was dismissed. Petitioners
    did not file application under Section 77 of 1966 Act. Thereafter, notice was
    issued under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
    Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 to decide whether it was
    public or private tern.pie. (Section 87 of 1987 Act corrresponds to Section 77
    of 1966 Act). Appellants and some others challenged jurisdiction of Deputy        F
    Commissioner to decide the issue, but it was rejected by the Deputy
    Commissioner. Writ petition filed against the said order was dismissed by
    Single Judge and confirmed in appeal by Division Bench of the High Court.
    Hence the present appeal.
                                                                                      G
         . Appellants contended that Depu~y Commissioner did not have
    jurisdiction to decide the question whether temple is public or private one;
    that Section 1(3) of 1987 Act does not apply to private temple; and that Deputy
    Commissioner cannot pass order under Section 87 invalidating or overriding
    an earlier order of District Court declaring it as private temple.
                                           357                                        H
    358                          SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A          Respondent contended that Section 160 of the 1987 Act had over-riding
    eflect notwithstlnding the decree passed by District Court.

            Dismissi11g the appeal, the Court

           HELD: I. It is clear from the Preamble and provisions of the Andhra
                                                                                           -
B   Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,
    1987 that it applies inter a/ia to all Hindu religious institutions or endowments
    including public temples. When a dispute arises as to whether an institution
    is a religious institution or whether a temple is a public or a private temple
    under Section 87, looking to the definitions contained in Sections 2(22) and
    2(27) as to religious institution and temple, the Deputy Commissioner has
C   power and jurisdiction to enquire into and decide such a dispute. (363-F, GI
                           '              .


           2. A mere self serving design of a party to claim a temple as private
    one cannot defeat a specific statutory provisions conferring power on an
    authority to decide a question. It is a·different matter if there is no dispute
D   that a particular temple is a private temple. When there arises a dispute as
    to whether a temple is a public temple or not, basically it becomes necessary
    to decide that question. If Section 87 is read carefully in its entirety, it will be
    clear that the Deputy Commissioner exercises' quasi-judicial power while
    holding ·enquiry and deciding a dispute under Section 87(1 ). Sub-Section (6)
    raises a presumption in respect of the matters covered by clauses (a) to (e) of
E   sub-section (I) that the institution or the endowment is public one and that
    burden of proof in all such cases shall lie <in the person claiming the institution
    or the endowment to be private. Thus, when there is a dispute as to whether
    a temple is a public or private one, the same falls within the purview of Section
    87 for the purpose of enquiry and decision. Thus, having due regard to all
F   aspects, the Deputy Commissioner has power and jurisdiction to decide
    whet.her the temple in question is a public temple or private one.
                                                              (364-A, B, D, E, F, GI

         3. It must be remembered that a private temple in course of time



                                                                                           -
    depending on various factors and developments may gradually acquire the
G   nature of a public temple. (365-A(

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No: 15.60 of
    1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.1996 of the Andhra Pradesh
H   High Court in Writ Appeal No. 89 of 1994.
   T.V. RATNAM v. DY. COMMR. ENDOWMENT [SHIVARAJ Y. PATIL,.1.) 359

     Mr. K. Venkataratnam, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Mr. K. Chandrasekhar,              A
Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta, Mr. A.N. Bardiyar and Mr. Mangalwadi for the
Appellants.

     Mr. A. Raghuvir, Mr. T. Anamika and Mr. Guntur Prabhakar for the
Respondents.
                                                                                   B
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL, J. In this appeal, in the light of the contentions
raised and submissions _made, the .following question arises for consideration
and decision-
                                                                                   c
         "Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments has power to
        enquire and decide any dispute whether a temple is a public temple
        or a private one under Section 87 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
        Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987"?

         In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are: It appears, a D
 notice was issued by ttie Inspector of Endowments on 8. 10.1 ?75 to the
 Executive Officer of Shri Panduranga Vitthal Swami temple, Chilakalapudi
 to register the said temple under Sections 38 & 39 of the Andhra Pradesh
 Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for
 short 'the 1966 Act). Challenging the same, W.P. No. 5480 of 1976 was E
 filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.11 ."1976 placirig on record
the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had
been advised to raise a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner under Section
77 of the 1966 Act to contend that the temple did not fall within the purview
of the said Act, being a private one. However, later the petitioner filed a writ
appeal against the order made in the aforementioned writ petition. The writ F
appeal was dismissed, noticing the statement made by the learned counsel in
the writ petitiqn as stated above but granted six weeks' time to the petitioner
to take steps as advised. The petitioner did not file application under Section
77 of the 1966 Act. While the matter stood thus, the Assistant Commissioner,
by his order dated 14.11.1977 appointed the Inspector of Endowments,
Machhlipatnam as the Chief Festival Officer for Kartika Shudha Ekadashi G
from 20.11.1977 to 26.11.1977. Fn the R.P. No. 168 of 1977, the Joint
Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, set aside the said order on the
ground that the order by the District Court, Krishna, in O.P. No. 1 of 1940
declaring .the temple as private temple, was in force and as such Assistant
Commissioner could not have passed the order appointing Inspector of H
     360                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

 A Endowments as the Festival Officer, while reserving liberty to the parties to
    move the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the 1966 Act for
    declaration that the temple is a public in view of the changed circumstances.
    Thereafter,_ a notice was issued in O.A. No. 1 of 1987 under Section 87
    (wrongly quoting as under Section 77 of the 1966 Act) of the Andhra Pradesh
B Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for
                                                                                      -
    short 'the 1987 Act') to decide whether the said temple .was a public temple
    or not. The appellants and some others challenged the very jurisdiction -of the
    Deputy Commissioner to decide such a question. However, the Deputy
   Commissioner by his. order dated 20.07.1.987 held that he had jurisdiction to
   do so under Section 87 of the 1987 Act. Assailing the said order, writ petition
C Nb. I0824 of J 987 was filed. Before a learned Single Judge, it was urged that
   under Section 77 of the 1966 Act there was no power to enquire and decide
   whether a temple ~as a public temple or a private one and that as on the date
   of the issue of the impugned notice, 1966 Act had been repealed. Repelling
   the said submission, the respondent pointed out that since the 1987 Act had
   come into force by then, under Section 87 of the said Act, the Deputy
D Commissioner was tompetent to hold enquiry and decide the question. The
   learned Single Judge, accepting the submission made by the respondent,
  dis.missed the writ petitien holding that the Deputy Commissioner had
  jurisdiction to decide as to whether the temple was a public temple or a
  private one. The appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 89 of 1994 questioning the
E validity and correctness of the said order. The Division Bench of the High
  court, after noticing in sufficient detail succinctly stated about th.e previous
  litigation of more than two decades and after considering the respective
  contentions, elaborately referring to the provisions of the 1966 Act and 1987
  Act giving the historical background, by detailed order dismissed the appeal.
  Hence this appeal.
F
         Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the very
  same.submissions, ·which appear to have been made before the High Court.
  The emphasis of his argument was on the point that the Deputy Commissioner
  has no jurisdiction to determine the question whether a temple is a public
  temple or a private one. According to him, the Deputy Commissioner has
G power and jurisdi°ction only as to the questions enumerated in clauses (a) to
  (g) of sub-section l of Section 87. He further submitted that as per Section
  1(3) of the Act it does not apply to a private temple; when the Act itself does
  not apply to a private temple, the Deputy Commissioner could neither enquire
  into nor decide whether the temple in question is a private t~mple or not. He
H made one more subsidiary submission that ill the light of the decree passed
   T.V. RATNAM v. DY. COMMR. ENDOWMENT [SHIVA.RAJ V. PATIL, .I.] 361

by the District Court as early as in 1940, it was not open to the Deputy          A
Commissioner to invalidate or override it and pass order under Section 87;
according to him, the said decree passed by the Deputy Commissioner operated
as res judicata.

       The learned counsel for the contesting respondent made submissions
 supporting the impugned judgment and order. In addition, he drew our.attention   B
 to Section 160 of the 1987 Act to state that it has over-riding effect
·notwithstanding the decree passed by District Court in O.P. No. 1 of 1940.
                                                         '
      We have carefully examined the respective submissions.

       At the outset, it must be stated that it appears the Deputy Commissioner
                                                                                  c
 issued notice on 6.6.1987 under Section 77 of the 1966 Act by oversight as
 by then that Act had been repealed by the present Act of 1987 and which had
come into force on 28.5.1987. As rightly noticed by the Division. Bench of
the High Court, the said notice should be construed as one issued under
Section 87 of the 1987 Act; mere wrong quoting of a statutory provision did       D
 not prejudice the case of the appellants. Jn this Court also, no argument was
made on behalf of the appellants in this regard and appropriately so in our
opinion. In order to appreciate the ar~uments of the learned counsel for the
parties, some of the relevant provisions of the 1987 Act are to be noticed. It
is evident from the Preamble of the Act that it is to consolidate and amend
the law relating to the administrat.ion and governance of charitable and Hindu    E
religious institutions and endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section
1(3) of the Act makes the Act applicable to all public charitable institutions
and endowments, whether registered or not, other than wakfs and it also
applies to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether
registered or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 2(23)     F
of the Act defines 'religious institutions' - means a math, temple or specific
endowment and includes a Brindavan, samadhi or any other instituition
established or maintained for a religious purpose. Under section 2(27) of the
Act 'temple' is defined:·-

       "2(27) 'Temple' mea!1s a place by whatever designation know·n. used        p
       as a place of pubfic religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the
       benefit of, or used as a right by the Hindu community or any .section
       thereof, as a place of public religious worship and includes sub-
       shrines, utsavas mandapas, tanks and other necessary appurtenant
       structures and land;
                                                                                  H
     362                          SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A            Explanation /:-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
.B           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."

             Section 87 of the Act in Chapter XII relating to enquiries, to the extent
     it is relevant for the present purpose reads :-

C            "87. Power of Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and
             matters:- (I) The Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall have
             the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person
             concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question-

             (a) whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or
D            endowment;

            (b) whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or
            endowment;
             (c) .......... .

E            (d) ......... ..

            (e)

            (t)

            (g) ......... ..
F                 (2)
                  (3)
                  (4)
                  (5)       Any decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner
G                 deciding whether an instituition or endowment is not a public
                  institution or endowment shall not take effect unless such decision
                  or order is confirmed by an order of the Commissioner;
                  (6)         The presumption in respect of matters covered by clauses
                  (a), (b ), (c), (d) and {e) in sub-section (I) is that the institution or
H                 the endowment is public one and that the burden of proof in all
   T.V. RATNAM v. DY. COMMR. ENDOWMENT [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 363

              such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the   A
              endowment to be private or the property or money to be other
              than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment as the
              case may be."

       Section 160 states as follows: -
                                                                                   B
         "160. Overriding effect of the Act:-( 1) Notwithstanding any
         compromise, agreement, scheme, judgment, decree· or order of a Court,
         Tribunal or other authority or any custom or usage governing any
         charitable or religious institution or endowment of Tirumala Tirupathi
         Devasthanams, the provisions of this Act shall with effect on and
         from, the date of the commencement of this Act, prevail in so far as      c
        .they relate to the matters governed by the corresponding provisions
         in any such compromise, agreement, scheme, judgment, decree or
         order or any custom or usage and such corresponding provision shall
         thereafter have no effect.

         (2) ........................ "
                                                                                   D

          Section 1(3)(b), Section 2(23), Sections 43. & 44 of the 1987 Act
 correspond to Sections 1(3)(b), 2(22), 38 & 39 of the I 966 Act respectively.
 Section 87 of 1987 Act corresponds. to Section 77 of the 1966 Act. Sub-
 section ( 5) & ( 6) already extracted above are added to Section 87 of the Act. E
 Under Section 87(1) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner havingjurisdiction
 shall have the power to enquire into and decide after giving notice to the
 person concerned, any dispute as to the question (a) whether an institution or
 endowment is a charitable institution or endowment; and (b) whether an
 institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment; besides
other disputes covered by clauses (c) to (g). It is clear from the Preamble and F
provisions of the 1987 Act that it applies inter alia to all Hindu religious
 institutions or endowments including public temples. When a dispute arises
as to whether an instituition is a religious institution or put it straight for the
present purpose, whether a temple is a public or a private temple, under
Section 87 looking to the definitions contained in Sections 2(22) and 2(27) G
as to religious institution and temple the Deputy Commissioner has power
and jurisdiction to enquire into and decide such a dispute. If the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellants that the Act does not apply to private
temples is to be accepted, then it is enough for any person or body to claim
a temple as a private one' so as to take away the power and jurisdiciion
otherwise conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 87 of the H
     364                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. I S.C.R.

 A   1987 Act. A merely self serving design of a party to claim a temple as private
    one cannot defeat a sp(jcific statutory provision conferring power on a authority
    to decide a question. It is a different matter, if there is no dispute that a
     particular temple is a private temple; in that case perhaps the argument could
    be accepted. When there arises a dispute as to whether a temple is a public
    temple or not, basically it becomes necessary to decide that question. If
B Section 87 is read carefully in its entirety, it will be clear that the Deputy
    Commissioner exercises quasi-judicial power while holding enquiry and
    deciding a dispute under Section 87(1 ). Under sub-section (3), every decision
    or the order of the Deputy Commissioner on confirmation by the Commissioner
    shall be published in the prescribed manner. Under sub-section 4, the Deputy
C Commissioner, while recording his decision under sub-section (I) pending
    implementation of such decision, can pass appropriate interim order
    safeguarding the interests of the institution or endowment. It is also .made
    clear under sub-section (5) that any decision or order of the Deputy
   Commissioner deciding whether an institution or endowment is not a public
    institution or endowment, shall not take effect unless such decision or order
D is confirmed by an order of the Commissioner. Sub-section (6) raises a
   presumption in respect of the matters cov.ered by clauses (a) to (e) of sub-
   section (I) that the institution or the endowment is public one and that burden
   of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or
   the endowment to be private. Thus, it is amply clear that the Deputy
E Commissioner has jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the dispute covered
   bi'. clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (I). Sub-section (6) has sufficient indication
   that in such an enquiry, there will be presumption that the institution or
   endowment is public one and burden lie~ on the person claiming institution
   or endowment to be private. Thus, when there is a dispute as to whether a
   temple is a public or private one, the same falls within the purview of Section
F 87 for the purpose of enquiry and decision. H may also be recalled that as
   early as on 24.11.1976 in Writ Petition No. 5480 of 1976 a submission was
   made on behalf of the appellants that an application would be made under
   Section 77 of the 1966 Act before the Deputy Commis.sioner to decide as to
  the character and status of the temple as public or private. We have no good
G reason or valid ground to take a view other.than the one taken by the Division
   Bench of the High Court in this regard. Thus, having due regard to· all
  aspects, we are of the view that the Deputy Commissioner has power and
  jurisdiction to decide whether the temple in question is a public temple or
  private one.

H          The second submission based on the decision of the District Cou·rt
    T.V. RATNAM v. DY. COMMR. ENDOWMENT [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,J.] 365

  made in O.P. No. I of 1940 declaring the temple as private, as rightly held      A
  by the High Court, has no merit or force. It must be remembered that a
  private temple in course of time depending on various factors and
  devefopments may gradually acquire the nature of a public temple. The
  Division Bench of the High Court in this regard relied on the decision of this
  Court in G.S. Mahalaxmiu v. Shah Rancchhoodas. Para 15 of the said judgment      B
  reads: -

          "Though most of the ·present day Hindu public temples have been
           founded as public temples, there are instances of private temples
          becoming public temples in course of time. Some of the private temples
          have acquired great deal of religious reputation either because of the   C
          eminence of its founder or because of other circumstances. They
          have attracted ·large number of devotees. Gradually in course of time
          they have becom.e public temples ..............."

        As per the decree passed by the District Court in O.P. No. I of 1940,
  the temple in question was declarecl as private on 24.10.1941 and a dispute      D
  has arisen whether it continued to be a private temple or it has become a
  public temple. Notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section
  87 of the 1987 Act. It cannot be said that no enquiry can be held and decision
  taken as to the character of the temple. Further, as per Section 160, the Act
  has overriding effect. Notwithstanding inter alia a decree of a court, the
. provisions of the 1987 Act will prevail.                                         E
      Thus viewed from any angle, this appeal, in our opinipn, is devoid of
 any merit. Hence it is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 A.K.T.                                                     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                                   F