Kondeboyina Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to DECLARE the action of the respondent No. 3 and 4 in not taking appropriate action to remove the encroachment and protect the properties admeasuring an extent of Ac. 33-23 cents situated in and around

¶17

2

¶18

Vemulakota village, Markapuram mandala, Prakasam district, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowemnts Act, 1987 and rules made there under as also contrary to Articles 14, 25 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently DIRECT respondents No. 3 and 4 to take appropriate action for safeguarding the 4th respondent temple properties, in the interest of justice and pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.J.V.PHANIDUTH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri J.V. Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 – Temple.

¶26

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondent No.4 – Temple is not taking any action in protecting the properties of the Temple.

¶27

It is contended that the petitioner claims to be the grandson of one, Sri Yogi Narasimha Swamy varu who had built the Temple in the year 1935 and endowed all the properties to the deity for the dhoopa, deepa and naivedyam. The petitioner contends that the petitioner’s great grandfather has dedicated all his properties to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam. However, the respondents are not taking appropriate measures in protecting the valuable properties that have been endowed in

¶28

3

¶29

favour of the respondent No.4–Temple. Thus, the petitioner made representation to the respondent No.2.

¶30

Upon such representation, the respondent No.2 has issued orders dated 31.05.2025 in Rc.No.E2/COE-15021/65/2025 appointing the Executive Officer. However, it appears that the said Executive Officer has not taken the charge of the Temple, thus the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to protect the properties of the Temple from the illegal encroachments.

¶31

When the matter is taken up for admission today, Smt. Anne Devi Subhashini, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4–Temple submits that the Executive Officer who has been appointed to take charge of the Temple as the Executive Officer, would be assuming the charge very soon.

¶32

Having regard to the submission made, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to take all the necessary steps to protect the properties of the subject Temple.

¶33