Forcible acts of endowment employees and crooked archaka
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 03 September 2022
This query is : Resolved
Respected Members Good evening
Please guide me in the following
A man krishna rao running small shop since 50 years, adjacent to satyanarayana swami temple compound wall, which has been let to him by one Gorongo Goudo and said goudo was died 30 years back.Â
Infact Hanumanth bukta was heridatory trustee of the private temple, archakas appointed by their ancestrals occupied the temple then said Hanumanth bukta filed suit in 1908 for posession inrespect of temple and won the case. subsequently with interference of locals, entered into agreement with archakas gouranga panda and other and handed over the diety and other articles, with an understanding that archaks should return the same whenevery asked by the Hanumanth bukta or his family. after the death of said hanumanth bukta, the family members of archakas settled the temple properties among themselves without any right. later there were cases among the archakas regarding the right over the temple in the year 1998 and 2001 & 2010 and all were dismissed. Lower court found that parties to suits do not have right over the temple, given a direction to Assistant Commissioner Endowments to take over the same. The order of the lower court challenged in appeal and in said appeal the appellate court deleted the part of lower courts order directing the Asst. Endowments Commissiioner "to hand over the posession" has been deleted. Hence the Endowments dept. nothing to do with said temple.Â
As per the understanings between the families of archakas.....four families collecting the rentals of four shops adjacent to compound wall of the temple.
Recently one of the archaka hardly trying to eliminate the others.....gathered some local people, injucted them to widen the main entrance (simhadwara of the temple). So that the shop under the supervision of another archaka can easily be removed. On the other side there was shop under the supervision of said archaka, but with his cunning nature he left the area of his shop, spreaded construction towards the area of the shop under the super vision of another archaka, executed his plan successfully, constructed dwaram with malafied intention.. Colluded with the staff of Endowments Dept. harassing the Petty Vendor.Â
approached Dist.legal Services authority, praying to remove / vacate the shop by submitting a representation mentioning the Municipal commissioner, Dist.Collector and Endowments Dept as respondents, praying to direct the authorities to remove the shop. the same is violative and against to right of living. Repeatedly the Endowments staff harassing the petty shop owner to vacate and threatning that they will evict and throw the goods forcibly. Infact said temple is not under the Endowments Department, but unlawfully interfering in the issue to support the archaka, locked the shop and tried to demolish the structure, who is a forcible man. other departments having careful inquiry kept quite in the issue. Police did not given support to the Petty Vendor, but orally suggested the Endowments staff not to do so without any right.
Devotees are not insisting for widening the existing door, but the crooked mentality archaka pinching some locals in his support and to take legal shelter approached Dist.Legal Services Authority with the help of some of Court Staff.Â
issue is pending with Dist Legal Services Authority
Dist.Legal Services Authority orally asking the petty vendor to vacate the shop without going through facts. Said Petty vendor was feared and disturbed. If he vacates the shop his family will suffer on roads for livelihood.
How said petty vendor can get help by approaching court, can he file a suit for injunction against the endowment authorities and archaka to restrict their forcible activities. Petty Vendor needs immediate help for survival
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 04 September 2022
Too long a story. The petty vendor has no right over the property of the temple. And a case is pending in DLSA. It is better to settle the issue amicably as the petty vendor has no right.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 September 2022
Tqqq but simultaneously said archaka had no right, as well the endowment department too.... To evict this petty vendor forcibly... And u may know well it amounts to violation of right to live
