B. Subhashan Reddy, J.:— This writ petition has been filed seeking restraint on further proceedings in the matter arising under Section 77(1)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act No. 17 of 1966) (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’).
2. One Manthri Gangaiah has moved the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, second respondent herein by filing O.A No. 46/1986 under Section 77(1)(d) of the A.P Charitable and Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1966 stating that Udasi Matam (Udasi Matam Swamy Temple) is a religious institution situated in Old Guntur and that public worship is performed and alms are given to Bairagees and that the said Matam is being managed by Mahant and the property mentioned in the schedule was endowed by Mohd. Badesha in 1150 Fasli for the maintenance and support of the said Matam and that the said grant made by Mohammad Badesha was confirmed by the then Government in the year 1860 and that order to that effect was passed by the Inam Commissioner in T.D No. 27.
3. It is also stated that the scheduled lands were given out on lease and the lease amounts were being collected by the Mahant some land records were filed and it was alleged that the 4th respondent by name Bommidala Purnaiah has cast his evil eye to knock away the property. The relief claimed in the said O.A is (i) to declare Udasi Matam (Udasi Matam Swamy Temple) situated at Old Guntur as a Public Religious Institution and (ii) that an extent of Ac. 87-00 of land in D. Nos. 1166, 1167, 1168, 1180, 1181 and 1182 situated at Guntur be declared as attached to the said Matam.
4. This writ petition is filed to pre-empt the enquiry on the ground that since the institution of the petitioner is registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State of Uttar Pradesh alone has got competence and jurisdiction to deal with the matter and to decide as to whether it is Public Endowment or Private Endowment. Mr. Ramana Reddy, the learned Senior counsel reiterated the said contention and in support of his contention cited two judgments of the Supreme Court in Ananth Prasad Lakshminivas Ganeriwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1) AIR 1963 SC 853 and State of Bihar v. Sm. Charusila Dasi (2) AIR 1959 SC 1002.
5. Mr. V. Tulsi Reddy, the learned Government Pleader submits that the said judgments of the Supreme Court are decided on their own facts and that they relate to other States and that the analogy there is not existing here and that there is dispute which has to be factually resolved and this court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot invoke the same.
6. The Endowments Act, 1966 in the State of Andhra Pradesh (A.P Act No. 17 of 1996) has been repealed and is substituted by the A.P Act No. 30 of 1987. Section 77 of the Old Act is akin to Section 87 of the New Act. Under the Old Act, against the decision of Deputy Commissioner, suit was maintainable as of right by the aggrieved party, be it an individual or an institution. But under the 1987 Act, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 87, the matter is appealable to the District Court under Section 88. We have perused the savings clause under Section 155 and that saves only such proceedings which are not repugnant to the provisions of the Act, 1987. As such when the order is passed under Section 87 by the Deputy Commissioner, the same is appealable to the District Court under Section 88 and one need not resort to the suit, as was the case with the Old Act of 1966.
7. If Jurisdictional question is purely based on legal contentions, there is no difficulty in deciding the same in the writ petition without driving the parties for resolution on factual aspects. But it is quite different when the jurisdictional issue is intrinsically linked with the questions of facts and in such a situation, this court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be availed of, for the reason that the facts resolution has to be made by recording evidence both oral and documentary and considering the same.
8. Insofar as the legal aspect is concerned, the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court both in Ananth Prasad Lakshminivas Ganeriwal's case and Sm. Charusila Dasi's case, referred to above, is to the effect that if the Endowments Institution is situated in a particular State but the properties are scattered not only in that State but in other States also in India, but the Institution which is registered at the Headquarters manages the said properties even in the outside States, then the properties in the outside States are by legal fiction are treated as appurtenant to the institution and the State where the Institution is located will have the jurisdiction for trying the disputes under the Endowments Act. This legal position being clear, the facts in the instant case are disputed which are very emphatically stated. The Matam functions at Guntur and that the same was setup for the purpose of Bairagees in the State and that one Mohammad Badesha has gifted the land to the extent of Ac. 87-00 for the purpose of management of the Matam and that the Matam mentioned above, called Udasi Matam, with a temple therein, is a separate entity not connected with the alleged Institution in Uttar Pradesh, as pleaded by the petitioner. These disputed facts have got to be resolved by a regular enquiry which is possible under Section 87 of the Act and which infact is pending adjudication. Further the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy to file statutory appeal before a Judicial Authority, i.e the District Judge, should he loose the case before the Deputy Commissioner, Guntur.
9. For all these reasons, we dismiss this writ petition subject to the observations made above and direct the second respondent to proceed with the enquiry as expeditiously as possible.
10. No costs.