Nampally Sri Ram Hanuman Worship Place is Temple Not Mutt: HC

Hyderabad: Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court ruled that Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Nampally, is a temple and not a Mutt and upheld the orders passed by the Endowments Department classifying it as a temple under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. The judge dismissed the plea and upheld the Gazette Notification issued on September 21, 1989, which notified the institution as a temple under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, and rejected the plea of petitioner seeking its reclassification as a mutt under Section 6(d). The judge dismissed the plea of the writ petitioner and upheld the Gazette Notification issued in September 1989, which notified the institution as a temple under the Endowments Act, and rejected the plea of petitioner seeking its reclassification as a Munder Section 6(d) of the Act. The petitioner would contend that the institution originated as a Mutt founded by a Mahant, followed a spiritual line of succession, and contained samadhis within its premises, which according to the petitioner established its monastic character. The petitioner also argued that the Endowments authorities acted arbitrarily in treating the institution as a temple, that the revision filed by a devotee suffered from delay, and that such devotee lacked locus standi to challenge the recognition of the Mahant. Rejecting these contentions, the judge relied on Munthakab records (1345 Fasli), Gazette notifications, and departmental records, which consistently described the institution as a Hanuman temple. Counsel for the Respondent, B.Mangilal Naik vehemently argued that in the Munthakab of 1345 Fasli, the institution is clearly described as a temple, not a mutt and the petitioners herein are misrepresenting facts to grab temple property under the guise of calling it a Mutt. The judge ruled that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments lacked jurisdiction to recognize a Mahant for a temple and that the 1995 proceedings recognizing anyone as Mahant were void, ultra vires, and without authority of law. It was further observed that once an institution stands notified as a temple, the question of appointing a Mahant does not arise. The judge further observed that a devotee possesses locus standi as a “person interested” under the Act to question illegal appointments affecting a temple and reiterated that a void order remains open to challenge at any stage. Noting material inconsistencies in the pleadings of petitioner, the judge observed that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.