The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the mahanth of Sri Udasin Mutt in Hyderabad, challenging a 2009 order appointing an executive officer (EO) to take complete charge of the religious institution.
In his judgment dated September 16, 2025, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Endowments, citing evidence of mismanagement of the Mutt’s extensive land properties.
Justice Bheemapaka stated that “in the interest of Mutt which was endowed with vast landed property during Nizam’s Rule, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent had rightly appointed the 4th respondent Executive Officer”.
The Mutt, described as one of the oldest Hindu religious mutts in Hyderabad, owns approximately 540.30 acres of land in Hyderabad’s Kukatpally.
Following a complaint regarding the encroachment of endowment lands that came before the Lokayukta in 2009, and based on its observations, the Commissioner of Endowments decided to place such institutions under the direct supervision of the Endowments Department through the appointment of an EO.
The petition was filed on the grounds of violation of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Endowments had no power to appoint an executive officer for a Mutt, contending that such power rests with the Dharmika Parishad and only in situations covered by Section 55 of the Act, and only when affairs are found to be mismanaged. The mahanth also asserted his fundamental right under Article 26 of the Constitution to manage the Mutt’s affairs.
However, the counter-affidavit and the court’s examination highlighted that the Mutt’s land, which had been leased out for 99 years to M/s Indian Detonators Limited and IDL Chemicals Limited, was found to have been transferred to M/s Gulf Oil Corporation Limited. Subsequently, the lessee failed to protect the property, allowing about 9 acres of land to be converted into burial grounds.
Story continues below this ad
The court noted that the Mutt itself had pursued eviction proceedings against the lessee under Section 83 of the Act, which were ultimately successful, with the Supreme Court dismissing the lessee’s appeal in September 2022 and possession being delivered back to the Mutt in October 2022.
“These are all indicative of the fact that lands of Mutt were mismanaged which warranted appointment of Executive Officer. Hence, the order impugned through which the 2nd respondent directed the 4th respondent to take/assume complete charge of petitioner Mutt cannot be found fault with in view of the proviso to Section 28 of the Act,” the order said.
The petition was hence dismissed.
