TEKI VENKATA RATNAM AND ORS . versus DY. COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 07-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
TEKI VEN KAT A RA TNAM AND ORS . • 
v. 
DY. COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT AND ORS. 
. AUGUST 7, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowments Act. 1987. 
A 
B 
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 
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. 
. 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 
F 
G 
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 Judgm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.