Disposed

G v. Subba Rao v the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jul 2024WP/3167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two conflicting writ petitions regarding the demolition of dilapidated buildings in a temple. The Court directed the authorities to obtain a second opinion from the Executive Engineer regarding the structural fitness before proceeding with demolition or reconstruction, and ordered a stay on demolition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to obtain technical opinion from Executive Engineer within six months and stay on demolition of the temple buildings pending the report.

G v Subba Rao Vs the State of Ap — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.3167 and 7559 of 2024

¶4

COMMON ORDER :

¶5

Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶6

of India for the following relief:-

¶7

“to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents resolution by the Trustee Board to demolish the “Vantasala”, “Vahanasala”, “Flower Garden”, and “Office Building” of Sri Madana Gopala Swamy Temple, located in Ballipadu Village, Atiili Mandal, West Godavari District is illegal and arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the “Vantasala”, “Vahanasala”, “Flower Garden” and “Office Building” of Sri Madana Gopala Swamy Temple, located in Ballipadu Village, Atiili Mandal, West Godavari District and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶8

Writ Petition No. 7559 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶9

of India for the following relief:-

¶10

“to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not implementing the resolution passed by the non-hereditary trust board of the 4^th respondent temple dated 12.11.2023 for demolishing and renovating the Old Office building and Vahanasala which are currently in dilapidated state and on the verge of collapse as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of articles 14, 21, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant necessary permission and estimates for demolishing and renovating the Old Office building and Vahanasala and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶11

Since the facts and issue involved in both the Writ Petitions, I find it

¶12

expedient to decide these matters by a Common Order.

¶13

The precise case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 7559 of 2024 is that the

¶14

4^th respondent/ temple was constructed about 300 years ago and it has also

¶15

¶16

got Vahanasala, Office Building which are constructed about 100 years ago, which are now in dilapidated condition. Therefore, the Trust Board of the temple has passed a resolution dated 12.11.2023 for demolishing and reconstructing of the Vahanasala and Office Building in the interests of the temple, which was also endorsed by the 4^th respondent. The petitioner has also invited suggestions and recommendations from the devotees and the villagers regarding the subject issue and they responded positively. The respondent authorities are not taking any steps despite there being resolution from the trust board, due which the employees of the temple and devotees are facing lot of difficulties and there is a threat of collapse. Therefore the petitioner is proposing to develop the Vaahanasala and Office building after demolishing the existing structure. Therefore, inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.

¶17

The precise case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 3167 of 2024 is that he

¶18

is the resident of Ballipadu Village. The temple is a stunning religious monument that has been the centrepiece of his community for over 300 years. The buildings of the temple are still stable and good in condition and it can be utilize by effecting minor repairs. The General Body Committee has made a decision to demolish both the office building and the Vahanasala building, despite both of them being in good condition. While it is true that the back side room slab of the office building has been slightly damaged, the issue could have been easily rectified through some small repairs. However, the existing committee seems to be using the existence of the minor damages as an

¶19

¶20

excuse to demolish all buildings that are currently in good condition. The authority is responsible for ensuring that all such activities are carried out in accordance with the established guidelines and regulations. On 12.11.2023, the current Trust Board passed a resolution to demolish the Vahanasala Building and affixed notice in the notice board of the temple and inviting suggestions from the public and devotees. The petitioner had recorded their entries in the book regarding the matter. They had also made a representation to the respondents 2 to 4 on 03.02.2024. However, despite their opinion, suggestions the Trust Board is planning to demolish the “Vantasala”, “Vahanasala”, “Flower Garden” and “Office Building”. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶21

Heard Mr. K. Srinivas and Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents.

¶22

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the respective writ petitions. Whereas, learned Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents placed on record the written instructions dated 27.03.2024 and submitted that the Executive Officer of the temple has submitted a detailed report to the Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajahmahendravam for seeking necessary permission. On 09.01.2024 some villagers made a representation to the 3^rd respondent/ Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajahmahendravam in respect of the administrative building construction. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajahmahendravam has

¶23

¶24

visited the subject temple and discussed with the villagers and trust board members and instructed to keep complaint and suggestions book at notice board for inviting objections by giving 15 days i.e 24.01.2024 to 07.02.2024. On 09.02.2024, Assistant Engineer, R&B Department inspected the subject temple for examining the fitness of the existing buildings and he issued fitness certificate on 15.02.2024. The Executive Officer of the temple has submitted the detailed report along with objections, suggestions and fitness certificate issued by the R& B Department for initiating further action to the Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajahmahendravam and waiting further orders. Therefore, requested to pass necessary orders in this writ petition.

¶25

Perused the record.

¶26

The Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2024 has been filed to direct the respondents not to demolish the existing buildings in the temple. Whereas, Writ Petition No. 7559 of 2024 has been filed to grant permission for demolishing and renovating the old office building etc.,

¶27

Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 3167 of 2024 would contend that the existing buildings in temple are in good condition and admitted that there are simple repairs in the buildings and it can be repaired. By ignoring the same, the General Body Committee took decision to demolish the buildings despite both of them being in good condition, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

¶29

Whereas, Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 7559 of 2024 would contend that since the existing buildings are badly damaged and it is in dilapidated condition, so also to avoid functioning of the day to day affairs, the Trust Board has passed a resolution on 12.11.2023 for demolishing the same. It is further contended that Mr. G.V.Subba Rao i.e petitioner in W.P.No.3167 of 2024 has challenged the resolution passed by the Trust Board dated 12.11.2023 and obtained interim order therein. Consequently, the respondent authorities are not taking any active steps to make construction in the existing buildings. In view of said circumstances, the devotees as well as employees of the temple are facing great inconvenience.

¶30

Per contra , learned Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents, on instructions, categorically submitted that the R & B Officials have inspected the temple premises for examining the fitness of the existing administrative building and they issued fitness certificate on 15.02.2024. Further, the Executive Officer of the Temple has sent a report to the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Rajamahendravam along with objections received from the villagers and others and R & B Report, which is pending with them and awaiting further instructions from the Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajahmendravaram.

¶31

It is an admitted fact that the existing building is old one, which was constructed about 100 years ago. Since it was in dilapidated condition, the temple executive committee has passed resolution to demolish and

¶32

¶33

reconstruct the same in the interest of the temple. However, Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the R & B Department visited the temple and examine the existing buildings. After examination, issued fitness certificate and that no need to demolish the old structures as it is old monument.

¶34

In view of the aforementioned circumstances, this Court opined that no doubt it is old monument, since it was constructed about 100 years ago, but it may be in dilapidated condition as contended by Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Whereas Mr. K. Srinvas, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed to demolish the old building. Since the objections/ suggestions was sent to the Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajamahendravam for further action and where it is pending till date.

¶35

However, both the counsels agreed to obtain second opinion from the Executive Engineer, attached to the Commissioner of Endowments Department with regard to the condition of the existing building and whether the existing building can be demolished or not? On such opinion, the respondents/ temple is directed to take further action in the matter.

¶36

Therefore, the respondents/ temple are directed to obtain proper opinion from the Executive Engineer, attached to the Commissioner of Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh with regard to demolition of existing building in question. The Executive Engineer, attached to the Commissioner of Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh is directed to

¶37

¶38

inspect the subject premises for opinion in detail. The entire exercise shall be completed within six (06) months from the date of submission of proposals by the respondents/ temple. Meanwhile, the respondents/ temple are directed not

¶39

to demolish the subject building till further decision taken by respondents.

¶40

With the above direction, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by

¶41

a Common Order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶43

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date: 12.07.2024

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶48

WRIT PETITION Nos.3167 and 7559 of 2024

¶49

12.07.2024

¶50

G v. Subba Rao v the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G v. Subba Rao 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

Munnangi Malla Reddy Vs The Assistant Commissioner ,Endowments Department

Muram Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tanakasala Baji Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Depot Manager, Vs S.Md.Basha

G. Krishna Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tota Venkateswar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh