Disposed

P.Prasada Rao v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Endowments,Hyd,Andanot

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2024WP/2420/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the temple authority's interference with the petitioner's residential property possession. The court declared the action illegal and arbitrary, directed the temple authority not to interfere further, and ordered closure of pending applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the 2nd respondent is directed not to interfere with the petitioner's property and to follow due process; pending applications closed; no order as to costs.

P.Prasada Rao Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Endowments,Hyd… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 2420 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

P. Prasada Rao, S/o. Late P. Satyanararna, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.37-12-43/1/1, NGGO's Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swany Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, Rep. by its Executive Officer.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of residential property i.e.. House situated over Plot No.251, bearing

¶14

premises No.37-12-43/1/1 Foment; 267 sq.yds.. NGGO's, Colony Sy.No.13/7, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the .. Constitution of India. apart from being in violation of principles of natural - -justice and i- consequently direct the 2nd so. respondent to refrain from doing

¶15

LA^NO: 1 OF 2Q1fi(WPMP NO: 3223 OF

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere i in any manner. whatsoever, with the petitioner's peaceful possession and , . enjoyment of residential No 37 12 43 /T p' r T"'" No,37 12 43/1/1, Extent: 267 sq.yds., NGGO' s Colony, Sy Ho 13/7 writ ---a'

¶17

LAJ^J 2 OF 2Q15(WVMp NO: 4452 OF

¶18

Betw^een;

¶19

Sn Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swany Devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, Rep. by its Executive Officer.

¶20

...Petitioner/Respondent No.2

¶21

AND

¶22

P. Prasada Rao, S/o. Late P. Satyanar^^l (ma. Aged about 55 years, Occ; Employee R/o.37-12-43/1/1 NGGO's Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh

¶23

■ ..Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶24

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶26

...Respondent/Respondent No.1

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the Status Quo orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.3223^of2015 in VV.P.No.2420 of 2015, dated 6.02.2015, in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI E SAMBASIVA PRATAP,^SCFOR ENDOWMENTS

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010202152015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶36

[3310]

¶37

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶38

FRIDAY .THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 2420/2015

Between:

P.prasada Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

Slate Of Ap PrI Scy Endowments Hyd Another and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶48

1.VSURYAKIRAN KUMAR

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶50

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶51

2.E SAMBASIVA PRATAP

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndiafor}

¶55

the following relief;

¶56

..issue a writ order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureofmandamusdeclaringthe} action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of residential property i.e., House situated^{overPlotNo251} bearing premises No 371243/1/1 Foment 267 sq.yds., NGGOs Colony Sy.No.13/7,^{Kapparada,VisakhapatnamDistrict,} Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal and violative^{ofArticles14,21and300-AoftheConstitution} of India apart from being in violation of principles^{ofnaturaljusticeandconsequentlydirectthe} 2"“^ respondent to refrain from doing so...."

¶57

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of a residential property i.e. House situated over Plot No.251, bearing premises No.37-12-43/1/1, Extent; 267 sq.yds., NGGO's Colony, Sy.No.13/7, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. He was allotted the house plot by the NGGO's Co.op.House Building Society Ltd., during the year 1989. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.998, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 16.07.2007, allotting the said plot to the petitioner, under Section 23 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, by collecting the value of Rs.15,591/- from him. Thus, the petitioner became the absolute owner thereof. Further, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation issued Proceedings in BPS.No.03417/Zone.lV/Ward No.36. dated 25.09.2010, duly regularizing petitioner's residential house under the provisions of the A.P. Regularization and Penalization of Unauthorizedly Constructed Buildings and Buildings Constructed i n Deviation of the Sanction Rules. The officials of the 2 nd respondent temple have been frequently visiting petitioner's property, unilaterally saying that the same belongs to the 2"^^ respondent temple except for oral statements, no proceedings known to law. Even as recently as, some officials, who did not mention their names, purportedly from the 2 respondent temple, had come to petitioner's property on 30.01.2015 and wanted the possession of the property to be delivered to the 2^^ respondent temple, failing which, they said that they would take

¶58

¶59

possession and demolish petitioner's residential house,^{withthehelpof} nd Police force. Questioning the said action on the part of the 2 respondent temple's authorities, the petitioner has^{preferredthepresent} writ petition.

¶60

This Court vide order dated 6.2.2015 while issuing^RuleNisi,has granted interim order that “status quo shall be maintained^byboththe parties”.

¶61

The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2"'^ respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, stated^{that.E-procurement} tenders were called for, by the Devasthanam in the^{monthofOctober-} 2013, for construction of compound wall around the^{hillofSimhachalam} Devasthanam. The lowest tenderer for an amount of Rs.3,24,85,258^/- vide \i\ias approved by the Commissioner, Endowments Department Rc.No.Q2/29820/2013, dt.01.10.2013. Accordingly work order was issued to the contractor to proceed with the construction^ofcompound wall around the Simhagiri hill at various places, vide in Rc.No.E1/4149/2013, dated 13.01.2014. According to the said work order the contractor started the construction of compound wall and completed about a length of about 8 Kilo meters along^{theboundaryof} Adivivaram village including in the boarder of Kapparada^{village.Atthis} Juncture under the guise of an unauthorized sale document, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court with an intention^tostopthe construction of compound wall. The construction of^compoundwall is

¶62

¶63

only for protection of temple properties situated in Adivivaram village, with in the boundary limit, it is to preserve the sanctity of Simhagiri Hill, which in the abode of main deity Lord Narasimha and to avoid unauthorized encroachments. The construction is being done strictly following the FMB Sketches only of S.No.275 of Adivivaram^and it was not going into the limits of Kapparada village, as alleged by the petitioner. It is further stated that the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the lands in Sy.No.13/7 of Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam District, they are in neighboring village. The petitioner said to have purchased the plots in S.No. 13/7 of Kapparada village are not in Adivivaram Village. Hence the petitioner cannot have any right to question the construction of compound wall within the^boundariesof Adivivaram village. Therefore the writ petition is^{notmaintainableunder} law and hence prayed to dismiss the same.

¶64

Heard Sri v. Surya Kiran Kuamr, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

¶65

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents made in the petition, whereas, learned Assistant^Government Pleader has also reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit.

¶66

Perused the material on record.

¶67

¶68

On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed from the G O.Ms,No.99, dated 16.7.2007, which is flied as material papers at page Nos.9 and 10, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that the land was allotted to the petitioner situated at D.No.37-12-43/1, Plot No.251 under Section 23(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act 1976 by collecting the value of Rs. 15,591/- from the petitioner. Further, as per proceedings of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation dated 25.09.2010 duly regularized the petitioner's residential house under the provisions of A.P. Regularization and Penalization of Unauthorizedly constructed Buildings and Buildings constructed in Deviation of the Sanction Rules, 2007.

¶69

It is the contention of the respondents that the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the lands in Sy.No.13/7 of Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam District, they are in neighboring village. The petitioner said to have purchased the plots in S.No. 13/7 of Kapparadavillage are not in Adivivaram Village. Hence the petitioner cannot have any right to question the construction of compound wall within the boundaries of Adivivaram village. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the action of the 2"“ respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of residentia'. property of the petitioner i.e., House situated

¶70

¶71

¶72

over plot no.251, bearing premises no.37-12-43/1/1 extent :P 267 sq. yds NGGO’s colony, 3y.No. 13/7 Kapparada, Visakahpatnam^District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶73

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The 2"''respondent is directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s subject property. If at all, there are any disputes with regard to subject property, the 2 nd respondent authority shall follow due process of law by duly issuing a notice to the petitioner as contemplated under law.

¶74

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand

closed.

assistant REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department,State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi..

¶82

The Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swany Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶83

OneCCto SRI V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶84

Two CCS to GP for ENDOWMENTS, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶85

One CC to SRI E SAMBASIVA PRATAP, SC for ENDOWMENTS [OPUC]

¶86

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2420 of 2015

X 1 1 FEB 2025
^ Current becuon
OesPATCWjS^'

¶93

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

P.Prasada Rao v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Endowments,Hyd,Andanot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Prasada Rao v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Endowments,Hyd,Andanot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sharmila, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Seshagiri Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jami Uma Kumari Vs Regional Joint Director

Devagiri Pamula Reddy Vs The Executive officer, Sri Agastheswara Swamy Temple

The Depot Manager, Vs Depot Union Secretary

Baghavathula Bala Tripura Sundari Vs the State of Ap