Dismissed

Sri Ramalayam Temple Self Style Committee v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC17 Nov 2020WP/9059/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged police interference with the Endowments Department's public auction for temple land leasehold rights. The Court disposed of the petition by recording the police statement that they did not interfere, without expressing an opinion on land ownership claims.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition disposed of by recording statement of non-interference by police.

Sri Ramalayam Temple Self Style… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original J urisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P. NAVEENRAO}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9059 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Ramalayam Temple Self^{Style Committee, Rep. by. its Chairman, Sri} .^Nunna Satyanaraydna. S/o. Viswanadhah,^{Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.R/o. Botlakunta} Village, Konijerla lt4andal, Khammam Dtstrict.

¶8

...PETIT|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Wyra Police Station,^Wyra,Khammam District.

¶12

The Sub-lnspector of Police, Konijerla Police Station,^{Konijerla village and} Mandal, Khammam Police Station.

¶13

The Assistant Commrssioner, Endowments Department, Khammam.

¶14

The Supervisor, Endowments Department, Khammam Division.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

¶16

( R - 6 is impleaded as per Court Order, dt. 2410812020 in l.A.No.2/2020.)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia 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 declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in not allowing the Respoldent No.5 to conduct public auction for the lease hold rights of Sri Ramalayam Temple lands in respect of an extent of Ac.3-30 gts. in Sy. No. 348 and Ac 0-30 gts. in Sy. No.29B situated at Botlakunta Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khamm am District as illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutio na I and in violation of the Rules contemplated^jn Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions and Endowments Leases of Agricultural Lands Rules and consequently direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the process of public auction to be conducted by the Respondent No.5 for the leasehold rights of Sri Ramalayam Temple Lands in accordance with the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowment Act and Rules.

¶19

IANO: 1OF2 020

¶20

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

¶21

Respondents No,2 and 3 not to interfere with the process of public auction to be conducted by the Respondent No.5 for the lease hold rights of the Sri Ramalayam Temple land s.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. SUJATHA KURAPATI

¶23

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

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. JAGAN^MOHANREDDY, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

-2

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,NAVEEN^RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.9O59 of 2O20

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel for petitioner arrd learned^Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶33

This writ petition is instituted by Sri Ramalayam Temple, represented by Sri Nunna Satyanarayana claimed to be the Chairman of Self-Style Committee contending that respondent Nos 2 and 3- police are not allou,ing the [nspector of Endou'ments Department arraved as fifth respondent to conduct public auction to grant leasehold rights on the lands belonging to the Sri Ramalayam Temple to an extent of Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.No.348 and Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.298 situated at Botlakunta Village, I{onijerla Mandal.

¶34

Sri K. Satyanarayana, Assistant Commissioner of Police who deposed the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent stating that police are not interfering in conducting of auction and only on a particular day to prevent untoward incident being happened police have intervened, but otherwise police are not involving in internal affairs of the temple and on the issue of conducting auction by the Endowments Department.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner therefore satisfied with the said statement and seeks disposal of the writ petition recording the said statement of responden t-police.

¶36

At this stage, Sri M.Srinivas Rao appearing for proposed respondent submits that there is no land to the petitioner-temple and land which is claimed as belonging to the petitioner-temple is actually used as cremation ground and land belonging to the private parties.

¶37

¶38

Therefore, the question of Endowments Department conducting auction is not va.lid in 1aw. He further submits that there is no committee established to run the affairs of the temple. As can be seen from the cause title itself, the deponent to the writ petition is claiming himself as the Chairman of the Self-Style Committee. The Committee has no manner of right on the land. Therefore, the question of conducting auction does not arise.

¶39

The grievance in the writ petition is only against police in interfering u,hile steps were taken to conduct auction of subject properties by the officials of Endowments Department. It is not in dispute that the Inspector of Endowments Department has issued notification to conduct auction. This notification is not under challenge. Even if what is contended by learned counsel for proposed respondent is correct, it is for proposed respondent to work out her remedies as available in law. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the respective claims on the properties.

¶40

Having regard to the prayer sought in the^{writ petition andthe} statement made by learned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor} respondent- police during the course^{of arguments, this writ petitionis} disposed of recording the statement^{of respondent-policethat theyare} not interfering in conducting^{of auction.Ho\'ever, it is needlessto} observe that there is no^{expression of opinionon the claims of} petitioner or third^{parties and it is for the respectiveparties to work} out their remed,ies as^{available in lar't' on the ownershipclaim of the} subject land. Pending^{miscellaneouspetitions, ifany,sha1l stand} closed.

¶41

SD/.M.MANJ A ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY/i SECTIO OFFICER

¶42

¶43

To, l.ThePrincipalsecretary,HomeDepartment'stateofTelanganaSecretariat, Hvderabad.

¶44

ifr;;;;;Lnt Commissioner^{of Police,wyra Police Station, Wvra' Khammam} District.

PIO

The Sub-lnspector of Police, Konijerla Police Station, Konijeda vlllage and Mandal, Khammam Police Station.

¶49

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Khammam. 5. The Supervisor, Endowments Department, Khammam Division.

¶50

The Tahsildar, Konijerla tvlandal, Khammam District. 7. One CC to A//s. Sujatha Kurapati, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, tourl

¶51

Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, [OUT]

¶52

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

1 1. One CC to Sri K. Jagan lt/ohan Reddy, SC for Endowments [OPUC] 12. One CC to Sri lt4. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 13.Two CD Copies

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711112020

ORDER

W.P.No.9059 of 2020

+
02
s
c
{r'$
*
l+otH

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

t
\2o
?'
*{)'

Sri Ramalayam Temple Self Style Committee v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramalayam Temple Self Style Committee v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

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

Rathlavath Rekya Nayak Vs The State of Telangana

Ravipati Pushpalatha,Prakasam Dist Vs S.P,Mahabubnagar,and 4

Smt. Allada Neelamma, Vs The Govt. of Ap rep.by by its Principal Secretary to Govt.

Sri Kiran Kumar Mittapalli Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Ghanshyam Das Karwa Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Yeruvva Narapareddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others