Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification

“Without Notice and Income Assessment, Gazette Notification Under Section 6(c)(ii) Is Procedurally Flawed and Legally Unsustainable” – In a significant judgment upholding the sanctity of private religious and spiritual institutions, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the Gazette Notification issued by the Endowments Department enlisting Yogananda Ashramam, Vinukonda, as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

Justice Sumathi Jagadam, delivering the verdict in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 169 of 2011, held that the ashramam was neither a religious nor charitable institution within the meaning of the Act, and that the notification was issued “without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 43, 44, and 65 of the Act and without providing notice to the appellants, violating principles of natural justice.”

Calling the classification legally unsustainable, the Court stated:
“The Ashramam is a private family institution maintained by the descendants of the founder, and cannot be brought within the ambit of public religious institutions merely because some members of the public were permitted occasional access.”

“Free Public Entry Alone Does Not Prove Public Religious Character” – Court Rejects Dedication Theory Based on Public Use

The central issue in the appeal was whether Yogananda Ashramam, established in the early 1940s by the appellants’ foremother Mahalakshmamma in honour of her son Venkateswara Dasu (who had taken to Sanyasi dharma and attained Jeeva Samadhi), could be treated as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act.

The appellants contended that the Ashramam was built on private family land, with no endowment of property for public religious or charitable use, and had always been managed internally by the family. They relied on a settlement deed dated 01.03.1943 and multiple supporting documents to prove that the institution was privately maintained and that public access was neither absolute nor by right.

The Court accepted this argument and reaffirmed the settled legal position that:
“The mere fact that members of the public were permitted to enter the Ashramam or offer prayers occasionally does not convert it into a public religious institution, unless such access is by legal right or supported by dedication of property.”

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Gurpur Guni Venkataraya Narasimha Prabhu v. B.G. Achia (1977) 3 SCC 17, the Court stated:
“The mere fact of the public having been freely admitted to the temple cannot mean that courts should readily infer dedication to the public. The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on whether the user was in exercise of a legal right.”

“Notification Under Section 6(c)(ii) Without Registration, Income Assessment and Notice Is a Nullity in Law”

Crucially, the Court held that no registration of the institution under Sections 43 or 44 of the Act had been carried out before issuing the notification dated 13.07.2000. Moreover, there was no income assessment under Section 65, a mandatory prerequisite for classification under Section 6.

Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed:
“In the absence of registration and assessment, the publication of the Ashramam under Section 6(c)(ii) is vitiated by non-compliance with the statutory scheme and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.”

The Court also noted the failure of the Endowments Department to give prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, despite the civil consequences flowing from the notification. Referring to binding precedents such as VVVRK Yechendra v. State of A.P. and Miryala Narayana v. State of A.P., the Court held:

“It is now settled law that publication under Section 6 must be preceded by registration, income assessment, and a notice to persons in management. The principles of natural justice are implicit in such quasi-judicial actions.”

“No Specific Endowment Found – Absence of Public Dedication Defeats Public Character”

The High Court found that the settlement deed and other documents submitted by the appellants did not disclose any specific endowment as required under Section 2(25) of the Act.

Quoting the legal definition of specific endowment as “any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a charitable or religious institution,” the Court ruled:

“There is no evidence that the Ashramam was established through an endowment for public religious or charitable use. The Jeeva Samadhi was constructed on private land, without public funds or donations, and cannot be treated as a religious institution within the meaning of Section 2(23).”

Even the Advocate Commissioner’s Report, appointed during the inquiry in O.A. No. 42 of 2001, confirmed that the structures resembled private domestic houses, that no public hundies or donation boxes were found, and that access was restricted.

Deputy Commissioner’s Order Held Unsustainable – “Failure to Consider Foundational Evidence”

The High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner of the Endowments Department had ignored both oral and documentary evidence, and did not appreciate the nature of the institution in light of applicable law.

The judgment noted:
“The Deputy Commissioner did not record any finding that the Ashramam was a temple, nor did he assess whether there existed a legal right of worship by the public. His order is contradictory and fails to appreciate the foundation of the appellant’s case.”

Notification Quashed, Ashramam Declared Private, Appeal Allowed

Allowing the appeal, the High Court held:
“The impugned notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) dated 13.07.2000 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 25.08.2009 in O.A. No. 42 of 2001 are hereby quashed. The Yogananda Ashramam at Vinukonda shall stand declared as a private religious institution.”

Justice Jagadam also directed that there shall be no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions in the appeal were declared closed.

“The question is not whether the public ever worshipped at the Ashramam, but whether they did so as a matter of legal right or under a dedication.”

“Any attempt to treat private religious institutions as public without adherence to the statutory scheme will be struck down as arbitrary and contrary to law.”

“A notification under Section 6 is not a mere administrative act but a quasi-judicial function affecting civil rights; natural justice is implicit.”

A Critical Precedent for Private Religious Trusts

This ruling reinforces the principle that not all religious activities or private spiritual spaces fall under the purview of the Endowments Act, unless they are shown to be public in character by origin, usage, or dedication.

It draws a clear line between public religious institutions governed by statutory controls and private spiritual spaces preserved by families, particularly in the context of samadhis, ashramams, and domestic shrines.

Date of Decision: 27 November 2025