HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 22979 OF 2009 Monday, the Nineteenth Day of January, Two Thousand and Ten Between Smt. Gavara Jayalakshmi Petitioner AND Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep. By its Executive Officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam Respondent ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent – Temple. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of mandamus to declare action of the respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his house bearing No.13-128 in Sy. No.1/1 situated at Gollapet, R.R. Venkatapuram village, 69th Ward, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. It is case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.13-128 situated over an extent of 147 Sq. yards in Sy. No.1/1, Gollapet, R.R. Venkatapuram village, 69th Ward, Visakhapatnam Municipality. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the above said property by registered sale deed bearing document No.4693/2005 dated 10.8.2005 from its previous owner Mr. Medithi Appa Rao. It is further stated that the said house is a thatched mud house. It is grievance of the petitioner that when he sought for permission to make construction and started construction in the above piece of land to construct a pucca house, the respondent is interfering with the possession of the petitioner without issuing any notice and without any rights whatsoever. Counter affidavit is filed by the Executive Officer of Sri Varaha lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam. In the counter affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the property in question, which is being claimed by the petitioner is situated in Sy. No. 121 of Vepagunta village but not in Sy. No.1 of Venkatapuram village, as such, it is alleged that the petitioner is an encroacher in the Devasthanm land covered by Sy. No.121 of Vepagunta village. In paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated inasmuch as the petitioner is an encroacher, he is liable for eviction under due process of law under Sec.82 and 83 of the Act 3 of 1987. The petitioner claims the property stating that he has purchased the same by registered sale deed Document No. 4693 of 2005 and claims that his property is situated in Sy.No.1/1 of Venkatapuram village. Even from the counter filed by the respondent, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is actually in possession of property in question, but it is the allegation of the respondent in the counter that the property in Sy. No.1 of Venkatapuram, the petitioner has encroached into the land of the respondent-temple covered by Sy.No. 121 of Vepagunta village. Whether the site in question would fall in Sy. No. 121 of Vepagunta village or Sy.No.1 of the Venkatapuram village, is a matter which has to be adjudicated by the Competent Authority, if any proceedings are initiated for eviction of the petitioner under Sec. 82 and 83 of the Act 30 of 1987. As of now, the petitioner claims title based on the registered sale deed and he asserts that the same is covered in Sy. No.1 of Venkatapuram village. In that view of the matter, it is for the respondent-temple to move the appropriate authority for eviction of the petitioner in case the petitioner has encroached into the land belonging to the temple. But without initiating any proceedings and without inviting any adjudication of the claim of the respondent-temple, on the mere allegation that the petitioner has encroached into the land in Sy. No.121 of Vepagunta village, the respondent cannot interfere with the rights of the petitioner over the said piece of land admeasuring 147 Sq. yards. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent not to interfere with the construction of the house which is being constructed by the petitioner in premises No. 13-128, in Sy. No. 1/1, situated at Gollapet, R.R. Venkatapuram village, 69th Ward, Visakhapatnam Municipality. However, it is made clear that the constructions, which are to be raised by the petitioner shall only be in accordance with the plan approved by the competent authority. It is further made clear that this will not preclude the respondent from moving appropriate authority for removal of encroachments, if any, in the land belonging to the temple. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J. January 19, 2010 MAS