IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27476 of 2007 Between: Bandari Harinath, S/o late Ramulu, R/o Bhadrachalam Village and Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sri Seetharamachandra Swamyvari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District represented by its Executive Officer. 2 The Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the natureof writ of mandamus declaring the arbitrary action of the respondents in high handedly damaging the jalm oil crop of the petitioner herein situated in Sy.No.5/1 and 5/3 to an extent of ac.4.40 cents and ac.0.52 cents of Purushothapatnam Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District, without issuing any proceedings or notice and without following the procedure contemplated under A.P.Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, while the matter is pending before the 4th respondent herein and trying to interfere and trying to dispossess the petitioner herein from the lands in question is illegal, void, and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with thepeaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's lands in question without due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MUMMANENI.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: CH.SATISH KUMAR,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS,TELANGA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27476 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be in possession of Ac.4.92 cents of land in Survey Nos.5/1 and 5/3 of Purushothapatnam Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. He made reference to various proceedings, that ensued over the past half a century. It is stated that at present, an appeal under Regulation 2 of 1970 is pending before the 4th respondent. His grievance is that respondents 1 and 2 are trying to dispossess him from the land and destroying the existing eucalyptus plantation. The respondents ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, stating inter alia that the petitioner has resorted to gross misuse of process of Court. It is stated that on earlier occasion, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.2188 of 2005 for this very relief and that writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open to him to seek the relief in the pending suit and despite the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri Satish, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. By instituting one proceedings or the other, the petitioner has been successful in continuing in possession of the property for the past half a century. The petitioner lost in almost every proceedings and is still continuing in possession. In his attempt and anxiety to continue in possession, he did not even hesitate to misuse the process of Court. With the same complaint viz., that he was sought to be dispossessed illegally, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.2188 of 2005 and it was dismissed, leaving it open to him to pursue the remedy in the suit, which came to be ﬁled, as per the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.16818 of 2004 and the resultant Writ Appeal. The petitioner did not even make a mention of ﬁling of W.P.No.2188 of 2005 in this case. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is almost challant in nature. He feels that even if his possession is illegal, he can be dispossessed, only by taking recourse to Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. It only exhibits his unshaken conﬁdence that he would be able to thwart the attempts of the Temple for few more decades. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Further, mere pendency of an appeal or revision before the 4th respondent cannot be the basis for the petitioner to be in possession of the land. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and it is directed that if the petitioner continues in possession of the land beyond 30.09.2008, he shall be liable to pay the lease amount for the land at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per acre, for the past ﬁve years; and the recovery of the said amount shall be in addition to the right of the Temple to evict the petitioner, without the need of institution of any further proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27476 of 2007 Date: 17.09.2008 JSU