Telangana High Court Upholds Temple Status for Historic Hyderabad Religious Institution
The Telangana High Court has firmly dismissed a writ petition that sought to grant Mutt status to a long-standing religious institution located in Nampally, Hyderabad. In a significant ruling, the court upheld previous government orders that designate the site as an age-old Hanuman temple under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1987.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The petitioner, identified as Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt and represented by its Mahant Rambharose Das Chela, challenged a 2013 government order that classified the institution as a temple rather than a Mutt. The petitioner argued that the institution was originally established in 1936 by Guru Mahant Mohan Das Ji, who served as the jagirdar and sole Mahant. It was contended that the site contains sacred Samadhis and that earlier Mahants had been recognized by the Endowments department, with the petitioner himself receiving recognition in 1995.
Government and Respondent Arguments
In response, the Government Pleader for the Endowments Department presented evidence that the institution is, in fact, an age-old Hanuman temple established by Sri Rama Bhakta Samajam in 1937. Key points included:
- The 1936 Muntakab (statement of endowment) explicitly listed the institution as a temple, not a Mutt.
- Sri Ram Bharose Das was documented as a Mutawalli or Mutawalli-Trustee, indicating a role appointed by the Endowment Department for property management, rather than a Mahant.
- There are no Samadhis present at the temple site.
Private respondents further alleged that the institution was incorrectly labeled as Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt instead of Sri Ram Hanuman Deval, suggesting this was done intentionally with the ulterior motive to grab temple property, possibly in collusion with revenue authorities.
Court's Rationale and Judgment
Justice K Sarath, in the judgment dated January 9, meticulously reviewed the case history and submissions. The court noted that the petitioner had previously engaged in litigation over a 2008 memo from the Endowments department, which declared the institution a temple. Although that writ petition was allowed in June 2011, leading to a reconsideration, the petitioner failed to challenge a crucial Gazette notification from September 1989 that also designated the institution as a Hanuman temple.
The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot now claim the institution as a Mutt without addressing this earlier notification. It was also observed that the petitioner's recognition as Mahant in 1995 was based solely on his representation, without substantial validation. Justice Sarath concluded that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands, citing inconsistencies in documents and stands taken in earlier proceedings versus the current petition.
Furthermore, the court found that judgments relied upon by both parties were irrelevant to the specific facts of this case, reinforcing the decision to dismiss the writ petition entirely.
