Dismissed

Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj a Registered Society v. the Govt of A.P and 4 Others

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022WA/955/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal involved a registered society challenging an order allowing land development. The Court held that the dispute over the land possession had been conclusively settled in earlier litigation, explicitly reserving 300 square yards for the respondent temple. Consequently, the Court found the present appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it, confirming the municipality's right to develop

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. The previous order allowing the development of the remaining area as a park was upheld.

Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj a Registered Society Vs the Govt… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{TWENTY THIRDDAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

WRIT APPE^{AL NO:Is5 0F 2009}

¶7

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpresentthethis lvlemorandam of^{WA againstthe order passed in W'P No 1721 of 2009dated} 24-06-2009 on the^{file of the High Court'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj^{A RegisteredSociety' C/o'Sri ShirdiSai Baba Temple'} Eii;s;;;s* C"lonJi,^{ruraipattv,Hvderab-adrep bv its General secretary'}

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

l.TheGovernmentofAndhraPrad' D;r"lopfu"t Departmeni -Secr e tariai, sh,MunicipalAdministration&UrbanHydeiabad, rep by its Principal Secretary.

¶13

The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Near TankBund' Hyderabad'} rep. by its Commissioner.

¶14

The Deputy^{Commissioner, West Zone, Kukatpally, The GreaterHyderabad} Ivlunicipal Corporation.

¶15

4.TheCommissioner,CyberabadPoliceCommissionarate,Gachibowli' Hyderabad.

¶16

The Station^{House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Hyderabad'}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the^{Appellant:SRl.C V R RUDRA PRASAD}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPALADMN' & URBAN DEV'}

¶20

CounselfortheRespondentNos.2&3:SMT'KALPANAEKBOTE'SCFOR GHMC

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: GP FOR HOME}

¶22

The Court delivered^{the following:}

¶23

¶24

€

¶25

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SIIARMA. AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.955 of 2OO9

¶27

JUDGMENT, rp. t the Hon'bte te ctnef Jushce Sdtish Clandru Shamal

¶28

The present writ appeal is arising out of an order, dated 24.06.2009 passed in W.P.No. 1721 of 2OO9 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

¶29

The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred.by Sri Shirdi Sai Samaj, a registered societv, stating that the appellant/ petitioner society and its devotees are being restrained from using 30O square yards of area, which is earmarked for Sri Shirdi Saibaba Statue Temple. The facts of the case establishes that the controversy involved in the present writ appeal stands concluded on account of an order passed on 24.O4.2OO3 in W.P.Nos.5902 and 1354 of 1998. This Court, in the aforesaid cases, has passed the following common order:-

¶30

"Therefore, for the above reasons, these two writ petitions are disposed of with the following observations and directions:

¶31

(i) Notwithstanding any order passed by any Civil Court and the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall immediately take action for demolishing and dismantling all structures, &'hich have come up in the open area admeasuring 2897 sq. _yards in the lay out approved by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, whatever be the amount spent on such structures, forthwith. The Municipality may take police help if necessary. It is made clear that all the Associations espousing the cause and public interest

.*--=:

:_\

of the residents are^{before this Court and no furthernoticeis} necessary to anYbodY;

¶36

(ii) The actual area^{occupiedby Shirdi SaiBaba Templeshall} be excluded and^{other structures,be it, temporaryor permanent,} shall also be dismantled^{and removedforthwith'The area of} about 2,597^{sq. yards after excluding 300 sq' yardsoccupied by} the temple shall be^{developedas a park and compliance report} shall be filed in this^{Court, within a periodof threemonths by the} leamed Standing^{Counsel for the Municipality;}

¶37

(iii) It is not denied^{that an amountof Rs 5,00,000/-has} already been sanctioned.^{Further, the learned counselfor} Baryanagar Colony^{Welfare Association,Sri V S'R Anjaneyulu'} submits that the^{members of the Association willbe depositingan} amount of Rs.5,00,000/-^{withthe Municipalitywithin a periodof} one month from^{the date of the receiptof a copy of this order, and} the same is^recorded;

¶38

(iv) The Municipality^{shallcommencethe work of park} forthwith without^{waitingfor the petitioner to depositthe amount} of Rs.50,000/-;^and

¶39

(v) As and when the^{Municipality requests,the} Superintendent^{of Police shallsenda contingent of police for} removing the illegal structures."

¶40

The aforesaid order^{makes it very clearthat in the earlier} round of iitigation,^{the respondents weredirectednot to touchthe} 3OO square^{yards of the area occupiedby the temple and about} 2597 square^{yards of area was to be developedas park'Meaning} thereby, 300 square^{yards of area was held to be in exclusive} possession of the temple^{and the respondents weredirectednot to} interfere with its^{possession.The orderpassedby the learnedSingle}

¶41

Judge was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶42

It is pertinent to note that after the^judgment was delivered on 24.O4.2OO3, again the present appellant/ petitioner society preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.15250 of 2004 alleging interference of its possession by the Municipality and the police and this Court by an order dated 03. 1 1.2004 has passed the following order:-

¶43

"So, from the pleadings it is clear that Shirdi Sai Baba Statue Temple is in existence in an extent of 30O sq. yards only at one place and not in two different places as claimed by Shirdi Sai Samaj. As a matter of fact, the Shirdi Sai Samaj liled WAMP 298 of 2OO4 in W.A.Nos.746, 748 and 848 of 2003 to exclude an extent of 300 sq. yards for the temple to the effect that an extent of 1OO sq. yards occupied by Dwarakami Temple and 200 sq. yards occupied by the main temple. The said clarification petition was dismissed holding that the order passed by the court on 11.9.2003 is very clear and unambiguous. That order became hnal. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merit inasmuch as the petitioner has already availed the remedy and now the petitioner cannot turn round and say that the respondents are interfering with the two temples located at t,!'o different areas. The order of the learned single Judge is very clear that the area of 300 sq. yards occupied by the Shirdi Sai Baba Statue Temple shall only be excluded from demolition. The order of this court is very clear that an extent of 300 sq. yards is occupied by Shirdi Sai Baba Temple. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed."

¶44

The^judgment in the aforesaid case was delivered in 2O04 and again in 2OO9 a writ petition was preferred stating that the Greater

¶45

¶46

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^{(GHMC) through its Deputy} Commissioner was interfering^{with the possession of the appeilant/} petitioner society and it was threatening to^{demolish the structures.} The learned Single Judge^{has disposed of the aforesaidwrit petition} stating that the lis involved in^{the case has already been decided} and that the temple is^{permittedto occupy 3OOsquareyards of} area, which has been segregated^{and the remaining area has to be} developed as^park.

¶47

In,the considered opinion^of this^{Court, there cannot be any} resolution of dispute again^{and again as is being prayed by the} present appellant/ petitioner society' The^{orderspassed by this} Court in earlier round of litigation^{make itvery clear that the} appellant/ petitioner societ5r has^{beenpermittedto continuethe} possession of the temple, which^{includes the 300 square yards of} area and insofar as said 300^{square yardsof area is concerned, the} respondents have been directed^{not to interfere with the possession} of the appellant/^{petitionersociefy. Therefore,the learnedSingle} Judge was^justified in dismissing^{the writ petition.}

¶48

The respondents shall certainly^{be free to develop the parkas} directed in the Iirst round^{of litigationvide order, dated 24.O4.2OO3} and therefore, insofar as the^{remainingarea is concerned, after} excluding the 3OO square^{yardsarea of temple, the respondents are}

¶49

)

¶50

certainly free to proceed ahead to develop the park, if the same is not developed so far. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶51

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. pending

¶52

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall

¶53

be no order as to costs.

¶54

¶55

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYil 4/ SECTl6N OFFICER

¶56

¶57

¶58

1 One CC to Sri. C V R Rudra Prasad, Advocate IOPUC]

¶59

One CC to Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, SC GHMC [OPUC]

¶60

Jo Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶61

4 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court forthe State of Telangana. [OUT] A Two CD Copies.

P[/

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310312022

."$
$
I,li.'
\

JUDGMENT

WA.N0.955 of 2009

Dismissing the WA Without costs.

Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj a Registered Society v. the Govt of A.P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj a Registered Society v. the Govt of A.P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Vijay Kumar, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Ltd.

Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corp.Ltd. Vs Smt. Susheela Bai

Telangana State Industrial Infrastucture Vs Y.Chandrasekhara Chowdary

G. Sudheer Kumar Vs Deveineni Arun Kumar

Smt.B.Laxmi, Vs The Joint Collector-Ii, Ranga Reddy District

A Shyam Rao, Hyderabad Vs Secy., a.P.H.B., Hyderabad and 3 Others