Disposed

Barala Gangadhara Sathya Varma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2023WP/2392/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous order, the single judge disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought protection against alleged arbitrary actions by respondents threatening to construct a temple on his disputed land. The court found the factual disputes regarding ownership and possession required ground-level investigation by the authorities rather than judicial determination in this forum.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents Nos. 6 and 7 to conduct a survey and ascertain facts regarding construction and possession within two weeks; determination of ownership disputes to be decided by competent ci

Barala Gangadhara Sathya Varma Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2392 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner claims ownership and occupation of 256 yards of land and a house plot in the said land bearing House No.2-24 in R.S.No.15/2 of Yerravaram Village, Golugonda Mandal, Anakapalli District. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the said property as his father had purchased this land on 11.10.2007 and his father and he have been residing in the said land.

¶5

The petitioner contends that respondent Nos.10 to 14 had approached his father in August 2022 and asked to hand over the site without giving any reason and had thereafter threatened the petitioner and his family members, including his father with dire consequences if the said land is not handed over to them. The respondent Nos.10 to 14 are said to have undertaken this course of action for the purposes of constructing a temple in the land of the petitioner without obtaining any permission.

¶6

The petitioner further states that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam had sanctioned an amount of Rupees Forty Lakhs (Rs.40,00,000/-) for the purpose of acquisition of the site and

¶7

¶8

construction of temple in the village, while respondent Nos.10 to 14 were also raising donations from the public to construct the temple.

¶9

It is a case of the petitioner that on 15.12.2022, respondent Nos.10 to 14 came along with a J.C.B. into the scheduled property proclaiming that they are going to construct a temple in the said property of the petitioner and started excavating the land for purposes of laying foundation. The petitioner and his family members were assaulted by respondent Nos.10 to 14 when they objected to the said actions of respondent Nos.10 to 14.

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the actions of respondent Nos.10 to 14 and more particularly the action of the official respondents, who are supporting the actions of respondent Nos.10 to 14, are high-handed, arbitrary and violative of the rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Sri K. L. Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam submits that the Devasthanam is not interested in undertaking any illegal activity and is only funding construction of a temple under the SC, ST and BC area

¶12

¶13

scheme. It may be noted that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam is not made a party to the present Writ Petition and an application for impleading the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam has been filed in I.A.No.2 of 2023.

¶14

A perusal of the above allegations shows that the petitioner is disputing the ownership and occupation of the land in which the temple is sought to be constructed. The petitioner is relying upon an occupation certificate that is said to have been issued by respondent No.7 certifying that the petitioner has been in possession of the property in question since 2007. It is not clear as to the statutory basis on which respondent No.7 has issued such a certificate and whether such a certificate confers any right on the petitioner. Be that as it may, the said issues are questions of fact which need to be ascertained and decided by the authorities on the ground.

¶15

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶16

It shall be ascertained by respondent Nos. 6 and 7as to whether any construction is sought to be made in the land being claimed by the petitioner. For this purpose, respondent Nos.6 and 7 may even conduct a survey to ascertain this fact.

¶17

¶18

1. In the event it is found that the construction of the temple is being constructed on land which is not within the 256 yards of land claimed by the petitioner, no further objection can be raised by the petitioner in this regard.

¶19

1. If it is found that the construction of the temple is being done in the land being claimed by the petitioner, there shall be an ascertainment as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the said land as on today.

¶20

1. In the event of the petitioner raising any dispute as to the ownership of the said land, the same may be determined by a suit before the competent civil court.

¶21

1. This exercise is to be completed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶22

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶24

15.02.2023 MJA

¶25

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶26

¶27

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.2392 of 2023

¶30

15.02.2023

¶31

MJA

Barala Gangadhara Sathya Varma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barala Gangadhara Sathya Varma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seethala Venkata Rama Rao Vs the State of Ap

Koparthi Desamma Vs the State of Ap

Usha Buildcon Vs Sri S.S.Rawat

G. Vijayalaxmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T Naresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alluri Ramanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh