IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION Nos.20689 and 20690 of 2002 WRIT PETITION Nos.20689 of 2002 Between: P.Prabhakar Naidu. … Petitioner And Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Kadiri, Reptd., by its Executive Officer and others. … Respondents WRIT PETITION Nos.20690 of 2002 Between: K.Lakshminarasimha Sastry. … Petitioner And Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Kadiri, Reptd., by its Executive Officer and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Chakravarthi for Sri O.Manohar (Both the Writ Petitions) Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: None. (Both the Writ Petitions) This Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- These two Writ Petitions raise common issues. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are in occupation of premises bearing Door Nos.4-91 and 3- 94 respectively of Buruju Anjaneyaswamy Veedhi, Kadiri, Anantapur District. They filed these Writ Petitions feeling aggrieved by the attempt on the part of respondent No.1-temple in seeking to demolish certain structures raised in their respective premises on the ground that the petitioners have raised the structures unauthorisedly over the land belonging to it. The grounds on which the petitioners assailed this action of respondent No.1 is that no notices were issued to them; and that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to unilaterally demolish the structures beyond its compound wall and recover possession of the properties allegedly not belonging to it. The Executive Officer of respondent No.1-temple filed counter-affidavits, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that adjacent to the houses of the petitioners there is a 10 feet wide lane in between the outside Prakaram of respondent No.1-temple and the rear side of the petitioners’ houses; that a drainage is passing through the said 10 feet wide lane; and that the petitioners and their neighbours have encroached into the said 10 feet wide lane and raised structures thereon resulting in closing of the drainage pipe line leading to stagnation of drainage water in the temple premises. Respondent No.1 denied the allegation that no notices were served. He asserted that notice, dated 6-10-2002, was tendered on the petitioners and that one more notice was served on them on 15-10-2002; but, instead of giving explanation to the said notices, the petitioners have rushed to this Court by way of the present Writ Petitions. I have heard Sri P.Chakravarthy, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one represents respondents 1 to 3. The fact that certain structures have been raised by the petitioners is admitted by respondent No.1. The averments made by respondent No.1 in its counter- affidavits are self-contradictory. At one breath it is specifically pleaded that there is a ten feet wide lane in between outside Prakaram of the temple and the rear side of the petitioners’ houses, over which the drain is passing; while at the same time respondent No.1 makes a vague averment that several persons, including the petitioners, have encroached upon the temple land. Respondent No.1 placed reliance on certain circulars said to have been issued by the State Government under Section 80(2)(a) of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). Even assuming that the petitioners have encroached into the property, which does not belong to them, the action for their eviction depends upon the ownership of the property which is encroached by the petitioners. If the property does not belong to the religious institution, neither respondent No.1 nor any officer functioning under the provisions of the Act have power or jurisdiction to evict the encroachers and demolish the structures. The aggrieved person can only approach the competent authority under the provisions of the relevant enactments or competent civil Court by filing an appropriate suit for their eviction. If the encroached property belongs to the religious or charitable institution, under Section 83 of the Act procedure is prescribed for removal of the encroachments. In either of the cases, respondent No.1 does not have an independent power and authority to remove the alleged encroachments, without resorting to the either of the above mentioned procedures. As noted above, even if the properties in question belong to respondent No.1-temple, procedure under Section 83 of the Act needs to be followed for eviction of the petitioners and other encroachers. On respondent No.1’s own showing, it has not followed this procedure. Therefore, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to interfere with the structures and the property in possession of the petitioners till such time as proper procedure, as mentioned above, is followed. Subject to the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:10-2-2010 MNR