Petitioner temple challenged sub-station construction on temple land. Court found no record showing subject land was allotted to temple; thus allocation for sub-station held valid and petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.36107 of 2014
Dated : 08.07.2015
Between:
Panduranga Bajana Mandiram, Rep., by its Custodian Sri Srirangam Seetharama Charyulu, S/o.Rangacharyulu, Aged 78 yrs, Occu : Pourohityam, R/o.besides Sri Panduranga Bajana Mandiram, Gajularajam Basthi, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Khammam District.
.. Petitioner
And
The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hanmakonda, Warangal & 5 others
.. Respondents
This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.36107 of 2014
ORDER :
Panduranga Bajana Mandiram represented by its custodian, instituted this writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in constructing a sub-station in Survey No.143 of Gajularajam, Kothagudem.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a huge extent of land was originally earmarked to Singareni Collaries Company Limited. Small portions in the said extent of land was earmarked to various activities. In a similar manner, 0.88 cents and 0.09 cents in separate units were given to Bajana Mandir for temple. He further contends that the land which is given to the temple is in possession and now it is illegally earmarked for construction of sub-station and the respondents 1 to 3 are undertaking construction of substation, which is illegal. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1345 regularizing post-facto enjoyment of various extent of lands by various organizations including the petitioner temple. He contends that having regard to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1345 Industries Department, dated 08.09.1960 and the orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.13204 of 2006 in W.P.No.10547 of 2006 by this Court that temple land cannot be earmarked for any other purpose.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vidya Sagar contends that pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1345, a lease was entered into between Singareni Collaries Company Limited and petitioner temple granting lease and that the proposed site where the sub-station is under construction is a separate extent slightly away from the temple. Learned Senior counsel refers to the rough location sketch prepared by the Mandal Surveyor, Kothagudem, attested by the Tahsildar, Kothagudem, which shows different extent of lands. He therefore, contends that the respondents 1 to 3 are not establishing the sub-station in the land originally earmarked for the petitioner-temple and it is a different extent of land.
4. As fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no material on record to show that the extent of land on which sub-station of respondents 1 to 3 is coming up was given to the temple. Thus, in the absence of any material to show that this particular piece of land was earmarked for temple, the contention that the same land is taken over for construction of substation has no merit. Even according to the orders in G.O.Ms.No.1345, only
two extents of lands were given to the petitioner temple shown at Sl.No.49 & 51. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these are different extents of lands, one is the place where the temple stands and the another is at a different place. If that is so, there is no third property shown in the said G.O. Thus, it cannot be said that the subject land was allotted to the temple and illegally the said land is earmarked for construction of sub-station by respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, I see no merit in the contention of illegality in allocating the land to the respondents 1 to 3 for construction of sub-station.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 08th July, 2015. Rds
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents illegally earmarked and constructed a sub-station on land originally allotted to the petitioner temple.
Panduranga Bajana Mandiram, Rep., by its Custodian Sri Srirangam Seetharama Charyulu
The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited
P.Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
