THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA MONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE W.P.No. 9791 OF 2009 Between: G.Rajendranath Goud …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. By its Secretary Revenue ( Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No. 9791 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 6-5-2009 and in W.P.M.P.No. 12725 of 2009 this Court made the following order. “Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the letter/representation dated 31-10-2008, in R.C.No.SVSD/60/2008, addressed by the Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer of the petitioner Devasthanam to the Deputy Commissioner, G.H.M.C. Circle No.III. Since the said representation is pending without any action on the part of the respondents, there shall be interim direction to respondent No.4 to pay urgent attention to the said representation and pass appropriate orders forthwith”. 2. Heard Sri K.Govind, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for Endowments representing Respondents No.1 and 2. Sri Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel representing Respondent No.3 and Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel representing Respondent No.4. 3. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that in spite of the direction and in spite of letter dated 31-10-2008, further steps had not been taken in true spirit and only certain encroachments were said to have been removed. However, Sri Satish Kumar, representing Respondent No.3 would maintain that asfaras Respondent No.3 is concerned already further steps had been taken and letter had also been communicated to initiate necessary action. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, it is true that the steps have to be taken for removal of the encroachments on the pavements, so that the same would not cause any obstruction to the devotees. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking any steps from removing encroachments on pavement on the narrow street leading to Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Devasthanam, Chikkadpally as per Rc.No.60/SVSD/2008 of 3rd Respondent dated 10-09-2008 and Rc.No. SVSD/60/2008 dated 31-10-2008 is arbitrary, illegal consequently direct the respondents to remove the pavement encroachment as per Section 83 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Section 401 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and pass such other suitable orders. 7. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner’s grand father late Sri G.Jangaiah having purchased two plots of land at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad in about year 1941 A.D. and having obtained permission for construction of a building there on, constructed a structure and shifted the Idol of his Kula Devatha Sri Venkateshwara Swamy from his residential house to the newly constructed premises. 8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was declared as Hereditary Trustee of the subject temple vide order No. 4 dated 23-5-1987 in O.S.No.1 of 1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Hyderabad. 9. It is stated that the Commissioner of Endowments vide Proceedings R.c.No. Gudibata 5/2008 dated 8-8-2008 enhanced the rents Rs.1000/- to Rs. 1,400/- per month for a period of three years with effect from 1-7-2008. Consequently, the Executive Officer of subject temple issued Proceeding Rc.No. 60/SVSD/2003, dated 10-9-2008 stipulating certain conditions such as the every shop owner should install his/hershop inside the leased premises, but not on foot path/pavement. The said proceedings were questioned by the tenants in W.P.No. 23490 of 2008. However the said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 4-11-2008. 10. It is also stated that Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Vari Brahmotsavam are scheduled to be held from 9-5-2009 to 17- 5-2009. During the Brahmotsavam different Sevas are performed to Swamy Varu such as Sheshavahana Seva, Honsa Seva, Gajavahana Seva, Garuda Vahana Seva takes place. In such circumstances unless a direction issued to the respondents to take steps removing encroachments on pavements as per Proceedings Rc.No. 60/SVSD/2003 of 3rd respondent dated 10-9-2008 and Lr.Rc.No.SVSD/60/2008, dated 31-10-2008, the petitioner will be put to heavy loss. 11. Letter dated 31-10-2008 addressed by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent had been placed before this Court and the said letter reads as here under:- “Sub: Endowments Department – Religious – Hyderabad District – Chikkadapally – Sri Venkateswara SwamyDevasthanm -occupying the pavements causing inconvenience to the devotees – Reg. *** This is to inform that Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, situated at Chikkadapally, Hyderabad is an ancient temple published under Section 6 of the Endowments Act, which is attracting large number of pilgrims especially during Friday, Saturday, Sunday and in all other auspicious and festive occasions. The Devasthanam owns the following 6 shops. 1. 1-8-491 2. 1-8-494 3. 1-8-495 4. 1-8-494/1 5. 1-8-497/4 6. 1-8-497/5 All the shops are being leased out at regular intervals. There are nearly other 15 shops on the pavement on the narrow street leading to the temple. All the shopkeepers have occupied the pavements which is causing lot of inconvenience to the devotees who visits the temple and also to the traffic passing by. When the lease period of the shops was extended by the Devasthanam vide Proceedings in Rc.No.60/SVSD/2003, dated 10-9-2008, the lessees approached the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and filed W.P.No. 23490/2008 challenging the action of the Executive Officer in (1) declaring the proceedings of the Executive Officer is illegal, (2) to declare the notice No. 60/SVSD/2008, dated 14-10-2008 ( in which the tenants were asked to pay the arrears of rent due to Devasthanam and also to vacate the pavement occupied by them) as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same. The said case has come up for hearing before the Lordship Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, High court of A.P. on 30-10-2008 and 31-10-2008 as informed by the G.P. for Endowments. The G.P. has also informed that the Hon’ble Justice also pointed out that due to the occupation of pavements by the shopkeepers in the n arrow street leading to the temple, there is lot of inconvenience to the devotees who visit the temple and also to the general traffic and hence they need to be vacated from the pavements immediately and that the Honb’ble Justice expressed that he would issue directions to the authorities of Municipal Corporation and also the Police for taking action to get the pavements cleared from unauthorized occupation. Therefore, I request you sir to kindly initiate urgent action for clearing the pavements in the street leading to the subject temple from the unauthorized occupation as observed by the Hon’ble Justice, High Court of A.P. during the hearing of case in W.P.No. 23490 of 2008”. 12. It is needless to say that in the light of the material placed before this Court, already interim direction had been granted. It is also stated that in pursuance of the same, certain steps had been taken and certain encroachments had been removed. But, the main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the rest of the encroachments had not been removed and there are certain encroachments left over are yet to be removed. It is needless to say that 3rd and 4th respondents are bound to take further steps to see that the other encroachments are also removed. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that 4th respondent had been intimated and it is the 4th respondent, who have to take certain steps. But it is complained that still certain other encroachments are yet to be removed. It is needless to say that 4th respondent is also bound to implement the letter addressed by the 3rd respondent in this regard, in its true spirits. This Court does hope that both the 3rd and 4th respondents may do the needful in this regard, in the interests of the devotees, who may have to enter the temple. 13. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 5th October,2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No. 9791 OF 2009 5th October, 2009.