The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus to remove alleged encroachments on temple land in Srisailam, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi under Section 2(18) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. While dismissing the petition as frivolous, the Court directed the respondents to protect the temple's properties, underscoring the balance between public interest and procedural legitimacy in matters concerning religious endowments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pilli Srinivasulu, a reporter residing in Srisailam, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Endowments Department. The petition alleged that approximately 200 acres of land belonging to the Sri Brahamramaba Mallikarjuna Swamyvarla Devasthanam (3rd respondent), a registered religious institution under Section 6(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, had been illegally encroached upon by unknown persons. The petitioner claimed that the respondents had failed to take action despite his representation dated 09.08.2024.
Key Facts
- The 3rd respondent is a registered religious institution under Section 6(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and owns approximately 5000 acres of land in the Srisailam Hill area.
- The petitioner alleged that around 200 acres of this land had been encroached upon by unknown persons.
- The petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.08.2024 (noted as 08.08.2024 in the judgment) to the respondents, seeking action against the encroachers.
- The petitioner claimed to be an interested person under Section 2(18) of the Act, granting him locus standi to file the writ petition.
- The respondents denied the allegations, stating that no conclusive evidence of encroachment existed and that the petitioner lacked locus standi.
Procedural History
- 17.06.2024: Writ Petition No. 22819 of 2024 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226.
- IA No. 1 of 2024: Interlocutory application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking directions for the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation.
- 17.06.2026: The High Court disposed of the writ petition and the interlocutory application.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the following reliefs:
- A declaration that the respondents’ inaction in removing illegal encroachments on the temple land was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India.
- A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate action against the illegal encroachers.
- Directions for the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 09.08.2024.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether the petitioner, as an interested person under Section 2(18) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, had locus standi to maintain a writ petition seeking removal of alleged encroachments on temple land, and whether the respondents’ inaction could be challenged as violative of constitutional rights.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that he was an interested person under Section 2(18) of the Act, which defines an interested person as someone having a substantial interest in the institution’s affairs.
- He argued that the respondents’ failure to act on his representation dated 09.08.2024 was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution, which protect equality, life, and freedom of religion.
- The petitioner asserted that the encroachments on temple land were a matter of public interest and that the respondents had a statutory duty to protect the properties of the religious institution.
For the Respondents
- The respondents denied the allegations of encroachment, stating that no official survey or administrative finding had confirmed the existence of encroachments on 200 acres of land.
- They contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi to file the writ petition, as he had not demonstrated a direct or substantial interest in the institution’s affairs.
- The respondents argued that they had constituted a Protection Cell Committee to investigate and evict unauthorized occupants and that the petitioner’s representation was under active consideration.
- They further asserted that the writ petition was frivolous, vexatious, and politically motivated, as the petitioner had failed to provide particulars of the alleged encroachments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the writ petition appeared to be frivolous and vexatious, primarily because the petitioner had failed to furnish particulars of the alleged encroachments. The Court noted:
"The writ petition appears to be frivolous, vexatious and is a politically motivated case, as the petitioner has not been able to furnish the particulars of the alleged encroachments of the land."
However, the Court emphasized the importance of protecting the properties of religious institutions, which hold significant cultural and spiritual value. While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the respondents to make all endeavors to protect the temple’s properties. The Court did not engage in a detailed analysis of the petitioner’s locus standi under Section 2(18) of the Act but implicitly rejected his claim by characterizing the petition as lacking merit.
The Court’s reasoning rested on two key observations:
- Lack of Evidence: The petitioner had not provided concrete evidence or particulars of the alleged encroachments, rendering the petition unsustainable.
- Locus Standi: The Court did not explicitly rule on the petitioner’s locus standi but implied that his status as an interested person was insufficient to maintain the writ petition without substantiated claims.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The writ petition was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.
- The respondents were directed to make all endeavors to protect the properties of the Sri Brahamramaba Mallikarjuna Swamyvarla Devasthanam.
- There was no order as to costs.
- The interlocutory application (IA No. 1 of 2024) was closed as a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Locus Standi Under the Endowments Act
- The judgment underscores that merely claiming to be an interested person under Section 2(18) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 is insufficient to maintain a writ petition. Petitioners must demonstrate a substantial interest in the institution’s affairs and provide concrete evidence to support their claims.
- Practitioners should advise clients that public interest alone may not suffice unless they can establish a direct nexus to the institution’s affairs.
Evidentiary Burden in Encroachment Cases
- Courts are unlikely to entertain writ petitions alleging encroachments without specific particulars of the encroached land, including survey numbers, official records, or administrative findings.
- Petitioners must conduct pre-litigation due diligence, such as obtaining official surveys or reports, to substantiate claims of encroachment.
Judicial Scrutiny of Frivolous Petitions
- The Court’s characterization of the petition as frivolous, vexatious, and politically motivated serves as a cautionary note for practitioners. Courts may dismiss petitions lacking merit and impose costs in appropriate cases.
- However, the Court’s direction to protect temple properties reflects a proactive judicial stance in safeguarding religious endowments, even in the absence of a meritorious petition.
Role of Protection Cell Committees
- Religious institutions and endowments departments should constitute Protection Cell Committees to regularly monitor and report on the status of temple properties. This proactive measure can preempt litigation and demonstrate diligence in protecting institutional assets.
