IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.25136 of 2009 Between: Radheshyam Sharma, S/o.late Ramkishan Sharma, Aged 68 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.14-4-366, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.25136 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record and at the request of learned counsel on either side that the lis involved in the present writ petition can be disposed of. Therefore, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 in taking necessary action against the respondent No.5 pursuant to petitioner’s complaint dated 07.11.2009 and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 10.11.2009, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the single trustee of Dahima Temple (Sri Ramchanderji Temple) situated at Chudi Bazaar, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad, which is registered with the Endowments Department. The said Temple has been existing on the land admeasuring 1100 square yards for the past more than 100 years. Originally his father was mahant and trustee of the Temple and was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the Temple. It is also submitted that in the year 1991, the father of the 5th respondent tried to make constructions in the Temple property but the same was demolished by the then District Collector and thereafter, the 5th respondent filed suit O.S. No.335 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad seeking to declare himself and the respondents 6 and 7 herein as the owners of land admeasuring 360 square yards, which in fact is the part and parcel of the land admeasuring 1100 square yards belonging to the Temple. In a portion of the land, claimed by the respondents 5 to 7, there is Havan-kund, Nava-graha Temple, Durga mata and Dahi mata Temple. The plaintiff in the said suit, by suppressing the material facts, before the Court below, obtained status quo with regard to his possession and on 07.11.2009 locked the Temple premises and thereby prevented worship and prayers in the Temple premises. Explaining the said situation, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent, Station House Officer, Shah-Inayat gunj, but no action has been taken by the 4th respondent against the 5th respondent. It is also submitted that a representation was also made to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, Hyderabad pursuant to which, vide proceedings No.Rc.D/1496/ 2009, dated 10.11.2009 the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments requested the 4th respondent to assist the petitioner in removing the locks, which was illegally put by the 5th respondent. However, for the reasons best known to the 4th respondent, no action has been taken by him. Eventually, it is submitted that the 5th respondent, with the help of henchmen, is preventing the Temple poojari and other persons from carrying on worship and prayers in the Temple property, as a result of which, there is utter chaos and resentment amongst the devotees. The 4th respondent is bounden duty to protect the Temple and its activities and he is not taking any action and is thereby supporting the 5th respondent, under the guise of pendency of a civil suit. The petitioner and the devotees are suffering severe hardship due to illegal acts of the respondents and more particularly, inaction of the statutory authorities in taking action, in accordance with law, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. Though, no counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, on behalf of the 5th respondent, counter has been filed, wherein, while denying that the Dahima Temple (Sri Ramchanderji Temple) exists in the land admeasuring 1100 square yards, it is admitted that the Temple is in existence since more than 100 years and the petitioner is one of the trustees of the Temple, earlier. It is also submitted that the respondents 5, 6 and 7 are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring 360 square yards, which is adjacent to and on the Southern side of the Temple, which was purchased by his grand-mother Smt. Susheela Bai under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1963 from one Gopi Kishan, which was registered as document No.203 of 1963. Therefore, they are the absolute owners of the said property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is a single trustee of the Temple in question and without there being any authority, the 5th respondent locked the Temple, restraining the petitioner and other devotees from offering prayers and poojas. In spite of request made by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to the concerned Police authorities, 4th respondent, no action has been taken. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that there is a dispute in respect of land to an extent of 360 square yards, which is adjacent to the land of Temple and the 5th respondent has nothing to do with the land of the Temple. Further, it is also submitted that the petitioner had tried to interfere with the land of the 5th respondent, therefore, he filed suit O.S. No.335 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad and obtained order of status quo vide order dated 12.06.2009 in I.A. No.2019 of 2008 in O.S. No.335 of 2009. Even in spite of order of status quo, the petitioner is trying to interfere with his land. Therefore, if any order is granted in this writ petition, under the guise of order to be passed in this petition, the petitioner may try to interfere with the property of the petitioner, which cannot be encouraged. The above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent constrained for the reason that as admittedly there is a lis between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S. No.335 of 2009, wherein, the Court below granted order of status quo. Therefore, in connection with the rights of the parties, claimed by the petitioner and the 5th respondent, in O.S. No.355 of 2009 is concerned, this Court cannot make any observation. For the purpose of disposing of this writ petition, it does not require to go into the merits of the case and further from a perusal of the proceedings, this Court on 19.11.2009 issued notice before admission and on 31.12.2009 directed the respondents 1-4 to keep open the Dehi matha Temple and permit the divotees for darshan of the Diety. There is no dispute with regard to the fact of existence of the Temple known as Sri Dahima Mandir (alias Sri Ramchanderji Temple). It appears that the petitioner made a representation dated 07.11.2009 to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Hyderabad, stating that the 5th respondent, after performing pooja on 07.11.2009 at 7 a.m., and while leaving the temple, he locked the premises of Dadhimathi Mata and Durgamata Temple and requested the Endowment authority to enquire into the matter and see that the lock put by the 5th respondent may be removed and allow him to continue to do pooja and also initiate suitable action against the 5th respondent. Further it is also informed that the 5th respondent has installed board by his name as if the property belongs to him. Based on the said representation, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department addressed a letter Rc.No.D/1496, dated 10.11.2009 to the 4th respondent, Station House Officer, Shahinayathgunj Police Station, requesting him to assist the petitioner to remove the lock of Sri Dahimathi Matha and Durgamatha in the premises of Sri Dahima Mandir (alias Sri Ramchanderji Temple), Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad to continue the pooja etc. The said order has not been implemented. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Temple in question was locked by the 5th respondent and the same cannot be allowed to continue, which amounts to depriving the legitimate right of the petitioner and other devotees in offering prayers and performing poojas and more over, the 5th respondent has no right in the affairs of the Temple in any manner, which was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent also brought to the notice of this Court that the locks put by the 5th respondent to the Temple were already removed. Therefore, no specific order, in this regard, is required to be passed, in the instant writ petition. Para 3 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with vacate petition filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC in I.A. No.2019 of 2009 in O.S. No.335 of 2009, which reads as under: “I submit that by virtue of said will dt.11.04.1988 and consequent to the demise of Smt Susheela Bai, myself and the respondents 4 & 5 became the absolute owners and possessors of the petition schedule property.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, in view of the averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in the vacate petition in I.A. No.2019 of 2009 in O.S. No.335 of 2009 that the locks were removed and the submission of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the locks were removed, this writ petition is disposed of with the following observation. It is open to the petitioner to approach the official respondents with a representation/complaint that the temple namely Sri Dahima Mandir (alias Sri Ramchanderji Temple) Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad is locked illegally by the 5th respondent and in which case, it is the duty of the official respondents to consider the same and pass necessary orders thereon. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 15.07.2010 LSK