Disposed

Kotu Prabhakara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2023WP/29609/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a notice to vacate temple land, the High Court disposed of the matter at the admission stage. Directed the second respondent not to take coercive action without following due process and to adhere to written instructions dated 18.11.2023. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent not to take any coercive action without following due process of Law and to adhere to the instructions dated 18.11.2023.

Kotu Prabhakara Rao Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.29609 OF 2023

Dt.20.11.2023

Between:-

Kotu Prabhakara Rao

… Petitioner

and

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, and another

¶10

… Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr.L.Srinivasu Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Panchayat Raj ORDER :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing the 1^st respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent–Gram Panchayat. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the stage of admission.

¶12

Aggrieved by the Notice dated 21.8.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to vacate an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in survey No.96 of Ulavapadu Village, the present writ petition is filed.

¶13

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Villagers and the devotees have constructed Sri Ayyappa Swamy Temple in Papaikunta covered by survey No.96, which is adjacent to Sri Krishna Mandir. He submits that under the guise of the orders stated to have been issued by the Hon’ble Lok Ayukta for removal of Sri Ayyappa Swamy Tample, the 2^nd respondent issued the Notice impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the in the said Notice it is mentioned that some notices were issued on the earlier occasion, which were not served to the petitioner, and a copy of the order stated to have been passed by the Hon’be Lok Ayukta was also not furnished. He submits that due to political reasons, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned notice and as there is a threat of demolition of the Temple, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. He also submits that the petitioner had submitted reply to the Notice dated 21.8.2023, but no orders have been passed so far.

¶15

Be that as it may. At the time of considering the matter, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent

¶16

¶17

placed a copy of the written instructions dated 18.11.2023 received from the 2^nd respondent and made his submissions. While referring to issuance of prior notices, in the said instructions it is stated that a notice would again be issued to the petitioner and after conducting personal enquiry, further action in the matter would be taken.

¶18

In the light of the aforesaid written instructions, which are placed on record, this Court deems it not necessary to keep the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the same is disposed of, with a direction to the 2^nd respondent not to take any coercive action in respect of Sri Ayyappa Swamy Temple, without following due process of Law and adhere to the instructions dated 18.11.2023. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶20

November 20, 2023. vasu

Kotu Prabhakara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotu Prabhakara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate bank), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of India Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of India Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelamanchili Sandhya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Shakir Basha, Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of A.P.

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh