Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has ruled that religious mutts are not permitted to engage in real estate business, alienate their properties, or divert resources, and must confine their activities solely to religious purposes.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka made these observations while upholding the endowments department’s 2009 decision to appoint an executive officer (EO) to the Nizam-era Shri Udasin Mutt at Hussaini Alam. The mutt, which owned about 540 acres of land in Kukatpally, had entered into lease transactions for the lands. It challenged the commissioner of endowments’ order appointing an EO, arguing that the department had no authority to interfere in its management.
The Udasin Mutt had leased its land at Kukatpally to Indian Detonators Limited and IDL Chemicals Limited for 99 years, and these leases were later transferred to Gulf Oil Corporation Limited. Allegations later surfaced that the lessees had failed to protect the property, with nearly nine acres even converted into a burial ground. Following prolonged litigation, including proceedings before the Supreme Court, possession of the land was restored to the mutt in October 2022.
However, citing mismanagement, and acting on the Lokayukta’s 2009 observations regarding temple and mutt lands, the endowments department appointed an EO to administer the petitioner-mutt. The mutt challenged this, arguing that under the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, such intervention was unconstitutional and violated Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious institutions the right to manage their own affairs. The mutt further contended that it had consistently fought legal battles to protect its lands and relied on earlier rulings, particularly the Ahobilam Mutt case, where the appointment of executive officers was held unconstitutional.
The endowments department countered that the property was clearly mismanaged, pointing to long-term leases in violation of the Act, failure to protect lands, and encroachments. It cited the Lokayukta’s recommendations and argued that appointing executive officers was a protective measure under Sections 8, 28, and 55 of the Act, used in multiple cases to safeguard endowed properties.
Rejecting the mutt’s arguments, Justice Bheemapaka held that the case of Shri Udasin Mutt was distinct from the Ahobilam mutt matter. The court found violations including long-term leases contrary to the Act, neglect of properties by lessees, and unlawful land conversion. It emphasised that administration and management of a mutt are inseparable, and in cases of mismanagement, State intervention is justified to protect endowed property.
