Shaik Madhusha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 2477 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Madhusha, S/o. Masthan Saheb, H.No. 5-105, Mosque street, 0pp. Government High School, Singarayakonda (PO and Mandal), Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh 523101.^

¶8

A.Ravindra^Babu, S/o. Srinivasulu, R/o. 5/85^^ Masid Street, Singrayakonda Post and Mandal Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh - 523101.

¶9

Shaik Sultan, S/o. Jilani, R/o. 1-101//^^5th Lane, Vidya Nagar Mulaguntapadu, Singarayakonda Mandal Prakasam District - 523101.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State o^Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary Revenue,^ (Endowment) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department, Ongbt^ Ongole District.Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Represented by Executive Officer, Endowment Department, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. Andhra Pradesh

¶16

The Grama Panchyat, represented by its Secretary, Singaray^nda Grama panchayat Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District,^Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Singarayakonda Police Station, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶18

The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply (RWS) Department, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶19

Rangani Padmavati, D/o. P. Narayanappa, Aged not known, R/o. Somarajupalli, PO, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶20

Kota SriniVasulu, S/o. Venkateswarulu, Aged Known, R/o. Somarajupalli, PO, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam^{District.Andhra} Pradesh.

¶21

Koturi Ranganayakulu, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Sorn^ajupalli, PO, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. Andhra Pradesh.*-^

¶22

Pitta Brahmrr^afah, S/o. Pitchaiah, R/o. Somarajupalli, PO, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. Andhra Pradesh:

¶23

Bellam Lak^fimi Harish, S/o. Veera Narayana, R/o. Somarajupalli, PO, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 writ of mandamus 1) declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any steps under section^{83oftheAndhra} Pradesh charitable and Hindu religious institutions and Endowments act, 1987 by stopping the encroachment of the land belonging^to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Templeand also the road of masjid street in survey number 605/A2 of singarayakonda village, prakasam district by respondents 8 to 12 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation^{ofsection83ofthe} Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 2) declaring the action of the respondents no 7 ( EE RWS) in not taking action against respondents 8 to 12 for having damaged the drinking water pipeline passing through the masjid street in survey

¶26

number 605/A2singarayakoncla village, prakasam district as illegal and arbitrary 3) by directing the 7threspondent to get the damaged drinking water pipeline restored by the respondents 8 to 12 at their cost and consequently flirect the respondents 2 to 4 to protect the land in survey number 605/A2 of Singarayakonda village, Prakasam district from being encroached by respondents 8 to 12 an^rpmove the constructions made if any.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶28

Petition under Section 1^1^ CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to stop the encroachment and construction in the land in Sy.No.^{605/A-2ofanextent} of Ac O.O^cents of Singarayakonda Village, Prakasham district by acting upon the representation submitted by writ petitioners on 22-01-2025 pending disposal of the said writ petition.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAGHUVEER REPRESENTING

¶30

SRIKKSHAIK

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G RAMANA RAO (SC^FOR ENDOWMENTS)

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M SRINIVASA RAO (SC FOR ZPPS, MPPS & GRAM PANqH^YAT)

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR HOME

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ^&RURAL DEV

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI ARUN SHOWRI G

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 9 to 12: —-

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

!;■ r

4

APHC010043462025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶43

[3310]

¶44

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶45

MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO: 2477/2025

¶49

Between:

¶50

Shaik Madhusha, and Others

¶51

...PETITIONER(S)

¶52

AND

¶53

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶54

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶56

1.KK SHAIK

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶58

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶59

2.GP FOR HOME

¶60

3.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶61

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶62

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶63

seeking the following relief:

¶64

« to issue a writ, order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of writ of mandamus (1) deciaring^theaction of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any steps under section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh charitable and Hindu religious institutions and Endowments act 1987 by stopping the encroachment of the land belonging to Sri Varaha

¶65

2

¶66

IS

¶67

Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Templeand also the road of masjid street in survey number 605/A2 of singarayakonda village, prakasam district by respondents 8 to 12 as^illegal, arbitrary and in violation of section 83 of the Andhra^Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act 1987 (2) declaring the action of the respondents^no7(EE RWS) !n not taking action against respondents 8 to 12 for having damaged the drinking water pipeline passing^through the masjid street in survey number 605/A 2 singarayakonda village, prakasam district, as illegal and arbitrary (3) by directing the Z'" respondent to get the damaged drinking^water pipeline restored by the respondents 8 to 12 at their^costand consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to protect^theland in survey number 605/A2 of Singarayakonda village,^Prakasam district from being encroached by respondents 8 to^12and remove the constructions made if any "

¶68

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are^residentsof Masjid Street, Singarayakonda having constructed residential^{housesituated} in Survey No.605/A-2 of Singarayakonda Village and^{Mandal.TheSurvey} No.605 is an endowment land attached to 4**" respondent-temple.^Thetotal extent of land in Survey No.605/A-2 attached to the temple^is Ac.23.36^cents. The starting point of Masjid Street on eastern side,^{thereisavacantplace} belonging to 4‘'^ respondent temple and the said vacant land is being encroached by respondents 8 to 12. The respondents 8 to 12 are also encroaching the 18 feet road of the masjid street.^{Whentherespondents8to} 12 tried to make constructions by encroachments the^{endowmentland,the} petitioners and others approached the respondents 3^{to5.Butnoactionhas} been taken. The petitioners also gave a complaint to^{the4^"respondentthat} the constructions of shops are being made by encroaching^{thevacantplaceof} the endowment department. But no action has been taken against the

¶69

respondents 8 to 12. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been field. 3. Heard Mr.Raghuveer, learned counsel representing Mr.K.K.Shaik, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Naguru Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4: learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for respondent No.7.

¶70

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner and other residents submitted a representation dated 22.01.2025 to the respondents 2 to 4 informing about the encroachment of the land done by respondents 8 to 12 belonging to the 4^'' respondent temple. He further submits that the respondents 8 to 12 have damaged the pipelines, which is a Government property with a criminal intent, due to which drinking water is leaking from the pipeline adversely affecting the water supply to petitioner’s colony and other;, f ; I areas and causing inconvenience supply of drinking water. The petitioners also informed to the respondent No.7 about the drinking water pipeline laid by them is being damaged by making construction over the same. But no action has been taken against the respondents 8 to 12. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate^orders.

¶71

•fs»

¶72

4

¶73

Per Contra, learned Government Pleader for Endowments vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present^writ petition and submits that the petitioners are encroachers over the^{templelandandthere} arose disputes among the encroachers and hence, the^{petitionersfiledthe} present writ petition with suppression of facts. He^{furthersubmitsthatthe4} th respondent is taking steps for removal of encroachment^{underSection83of} the Endowments Act 30/87. Therefore, learned Government Pleader requests this Court to record the same and close the writ petition.

¶74

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5, on instructions, submits that, the Gram Panchayat^hasalready laid down the pipe line, in accordance with law.

¶75