ORDER
Sivaraman Nair, J.
1. Petitioner is the son of Rajah of Shorapuram in the erstwhile Nizam State with the status of Sahebjang Bahadur Balmat Mulkimdar of the Nizam of Hyderabad. The estate was performing certain religious rituals in the Tirumala Devasthanam. On 16-2-1934 an agreement was drawn, detailing the services and religious rituals to be rendered by the estate which included-
1. Nitya Kalyana Mangala Haratis-2
2. Nitya Navaneeta Harati-1
3. Milk-1/2 ser.
4. Akhand ghee-1/2 ser.
5. Yearly supply of Saree and a Ravika to Ammavaru at Tiruchanur.
6. Silk Navar for the cot.
7. Mukhamal bed and 2 pillows.
8. Mosquito curtain.
9. Silver throne, Golden Hamsa Vahanam, Silver Cot and Chair, Charriot Mantapam, Ghanta Mantapam and Nandanavana.
These services were being conducted in Teru Mantapam and Ghanta Mantapam located near the temple. It is the case of the petitioner that these services were inextricably connected with these mandapams and that they are being conducted even now. The 1st respondent issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-5-1986 proposing to acquire the lands and buildings in Ward No. 3, T.S. No. 23 having an extent of 01.12 hectares which constitute the Teru Mantapam and Ghanta Mantapam. Petitioner submits that a portion of the building proposed for acquisition is used as a Choultry for Pilgrims and other portions are let out to certain small vendors. Some of the rooms are occupied by persons who assist the petitioner in the discharge of religious rituals. Petitioner objected to that acquisition. An enquiry was conducted thereafter under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner participated in those proceedings through a representative. Overruling the objections, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 6-3-87. The 1st respondent issued notice in Form No. 10 on 19-3-90 stating that an award was passed in the proposed acquisition on 28-2-1989. The 1st respondent directed the petitioner to deliver possession to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirumalai. Some of the residents of the building filed O. S. 464 of 1990 before the Prl. District Munsif, Tirupathi In I.A. 2363/90 in the said suit, an interim order was passed restraining the respondents from evicting those residents from the property. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of those proceedings even though his power of attorney holder participated in them. Petitioner now assails the award proceedings which the 1st respondent passed on 28-2-89.
2. The main contentions which he raised are : that the public purpose mentioned in Section 4 (1) notification i.e. “for construction of IV Choultry for the convenience of visiting pilgrims” cannot justify the acquisition since the petitioner is maintaining a portion of the concerned building rendering religious rituals and services and the other portion for identical purposes, as a choultry for the purpose of pilgrims. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is evident from the award proceedings that the entire compensation is paid by the 2nd respondent, which is not a ‘State or a local authority’ and as such the acquisition is not for a public purpose.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as the acquisition interferes with the religious rituals which the petitioner has been performing from times immemorial and which were codified in an agreement dt. 16-2-1934, the acquisition is violative of the petitioner’s right to practise religion as guaranteed by Art. 26 of the Constitution of India. He also laid emphasis on the contentions referred to above viz., that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and that the compensation was paid entirely from out of the funds of the 2nd respondent which do not have the character of a public revenue. Counsel submitted emphatically that in so far as a prima facie case or an arguable case is made out, it is appropriate that the Writ Petition is admitted and the contentions are examined in greater detail.
4. The 1st two points are covered by the decision of a Division Bench reported in M. Padmanabha Iyengar v. Govt. of A.P., . The only point which is not covered by that decision is as to whether deposit of the compensation by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam invalidates that acquisition, since the compensation to be awarded is to be paid not wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by local authority. This is a contention which was not raised by the petitioner at any earlier stage. Therefore, there is no justification to permit the petitioner to raise this contention at this distance of time. Even otherwise, there is a specific recital in the award proceedings to the effect that the State Government had contributed a token sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the lands with which we are concerned in the Writ Petition. That satisfies the requirement of part of the compensation being paid out of public revenues. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam satisfies the requirement of a ‘Local Authority’ as defined in Section 3 (aa) of the Land Acquisition Act. The same provides that “local authority includes a town planning authority (by whatever name called) set up under any law for the time being in force, and does not include an authority which will not answer the exclusive definition of a company as contained in Section 3 (e) of the Act.” There is a contra distinction between a local authority and a company. It may perhaps be possible to say that whatever the authority or incorporated body which is not a company may be local authority for purposes of the Act.
5. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam is an authority recognised by the statute. Chapter XIV of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 contains the provisions applicable to the Devasthanam. Section 111 of the Act deals with the funds of the T.T.D. The same vests various powers of the Devasthanam. Some of the powers are ordinarily exercised by the local authorities like – (1) construction and maintenance of choultries and rest houses for the use and accomodation of the pilgrims, (2) provision of water supply and other sanitary arrangements to the pilgrims and worshippers, (3) establishment and maintenance of hospitals and dispensaries for the relief of the pilgrims and worshippers visiting the temples, (4) construction and maintenance of roads and communications and the lighting thereof for the convenience of pilgrims and worshippers, (5) acquisition of any land or other immovable property for the purpose of the Triumala Tirupathi Devasthanums, if such acquisition is authorised by the Government, etc.
6. The most important provision is Section 111 (4)(x) viz., acquisition of any land or other immoveable property for the purpose of the T.T.D., if such acquisition is authorised by the Government. In the light of this provision, it has to be held that the requirements of Section 6 (2) proviso of the Land Acquisition Act are satisfied, since substantial amount towards compensation is to be paid by the T.T.D. which does not answer the definition of a ‘company’ and which has many of the characteristics of a local authority.
7. Government Pleader invited my intention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W. P. 118/83 etc. in which acquisition on behalf of the housing board came up for consideration, though there was no discussion as to whether the Housing Board is a ‘local authority’. This court appears to have assumed that it not being a company defined in Section 3 (e) of the Act, should be assumed to be a local authority which falls within the inclusive definition under Section 3 (aa) of the Land Acquisition Act.
8. In view of the above, I am not persuaded to hold that the petitioner has an arguable case in view of the decision of the Division Bench . The inordinate and unexplained delay and laches in invoking this discretionary jurisdiction and the fact that T.T. Devasthanam which is definitely not a company and may therefore fall under the inclusive definition of ‘local authority’ under Section 3 (aa) of the Act disentitles the petitioner from any relief. The Writ Petition is therefore. dismissed. Advocate’s fee Rs. 250/-.