Telangana High Court Refers Disputes Over Demolition & Reconstruction Of Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple To Endowments Authority

The Telangana High Court has directed the competent authority under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act to conduct a detailed enquiry into allegations concerning the demolition and reconstruction of the historic Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple located at Secunderabad. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92]

The allegations include claims of unauthorized razing of the old structure and construction of new structures in the temple premises, relocation of the deity, non-performance of essential religious rituals, lack of audit of donations and alleged misuse of nearly ₹16 crore collected from devotees.

The court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to declare the action of three temple committees in demolishing the original temple without obtaining valid permissions from  authorities and carrying reconstruction without any right over the leased temple land, as illegal and violating the beliefs of the devotees from the Vysya community. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty observed:

"This Court... deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to the competent authority under the Endowments Act, who after detailed enquiry into the matter, shall adjudicate the disputed questions of facts like obtaining the advise of Stapathi before shifting of the deity from ground floor to first floor, whether the religious rituals including Kumbh Abhishekam and Vighna Pratishtha, which are necessary for consecration and sanctification prior to opening the newly constructed temple have been performed or not, etc., and adjudicate the said issues and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act."

The Court held that allegations regarding misuse of temple funds, non-submission of statutory budgets and audits, demolition of the old structure without statutory approvals, and the relocation of the idol involve disputed questions of fact that must be examined by the statutory authority after affording both sides an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner alleged that the historic temple, managed by committees of the Arya Vysya community for decades, was demolished without obtaining mandatory permissions from the Endowments Department or other authorities. It was further alleged that respondent committees collected nearly ₹16 crore from devotees for the reconstruction, but failed to maintain transparency in the utilization of those funds or comply with statutory requirements under the Endowments Act.

Another grievance raised before the Court was that the presiding deity had been shifted from the ground floor to the first floor of the newly constructed temple contrary to established religious customs and without consultation with a qualified Sthapathi. The petitioner also alleged that mandatory rituals such as Kumbh Abhishekam and Vighna Pratishtha had not been performed before opening the reconstructed temple, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of devotees.

The Endowments Department informed the Court that it had repeatedly issued notices directing the committees to stop unauthorized construction, furnish records and obtain statutory approvals. According to the Department, the committees nevertheless proceeded with demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new temple "without any sanction from the Commissioner, Endowments Department" and without obtaining approvals from the Engineering Section or consulting the Sthapathi as required under the Act.

It also pointed to several instances of alleged mismanagement, including unauthorized operation of bank accounts, lack of audit of donations collected from devotees and non-cooperation with the Department's enquiry.

The respondent committees disputed the allegations. They submitted that all donations had been properly accounted for and undertook to produce the accounts before the competent authority. They further asserted that the reconstruction had been undertaken after obtaining advice from a Sthapathi who had designed the Yadadri Temple and maintained that all religious ceremonies, including consecration rituals, had been duly performed.

The committees also explained that the deity had been relocated because the original sanctum was situated in a low-lying area that was regularly inundated during the rainy season, making the shift necessary "in the interest of the devotees."

The High Court found that these rival claims could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Observing that "the rival claims of both the parties... needs detailed examination of the case vis-a-vis the relevant documents", the Court held that the competent authority under the Endowments Act must examine the evidence and determine whether statutory permissions had been obtained, whether the prescribed religious procedures were followed, and whether there had been any financial irregularities.

The Court also rejected the petitioner's allegation that the Endowments Department had remained inactive, observing that the material placed before it showed that the Department had acted promptly by issuing notices after receiving complaints.

On the preliminary objection that the temple committees were merely registered societies, the Court held that since they administer a religious institution governed by the Endowments Act, the statutory obligations discharged by them assume the character of public functions, making the writ petition maintainable.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the competent authority under the Endowments Act with liberty to all parties to raise their contentions and produce relevant material, including the statement of accounts, records relating to the advice of the Sthapathi, and other documents concerning the reconstruction of the temple.

Case Title: Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 4182 of 2025

Appearance: Senior Advocate L. Ravi Chander for the petitioner; Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.2; Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.4 and 5; Senior Advocate S. Ashok Anand Kumar for respondent Nos.9 to 11.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92