IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5698 of 2005 Between: Pujari Vannuramma W/o. Late Rajappa, Mamiduru Hamlet of Santa Kondapuram, Brahmasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Brahmasamudram, Anantapur District. 3 M.R.O., Brahmasamudram Mandal, Brahmasamundram, Anantapur District. 4 Executive Director, District Scheduled Castes Service, Co-op Society Ltd., Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Maybe pleased to issue a writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to register the lands admeasuring Ac.44-45 and Ac.42-80 in Survey Nos.110 and 115 respectively of S.Kondapuram Village belonging to Sri Rajula Devara Temple, for the purpose of registration in favour of Scheduled Castes family of Palavenkatapuram, hamlet of S.Kondapuram village, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and pass such further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.V.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. No counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents in this writ petition filed on 09-03-2005 despite the lapse of three years. The petitioner alleges that the respondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioner of lands in an extent of Ac.44-45 cents in survey No. 110 and Ac.42-80 cents in survey No. 115 of Mamiduru village hamlet of Santa Kondapuram village, Brahmasamudram mandal, Ananthapur district belonging to Sri Rajula Devara Temple for the purpose of allotment, conveyance and registration in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and without following the due process of law. According to the petitioner, the ancestors of her father-in-law right up to her late husband were the hereditary Archakas of the private temple known as Sri Rajula Devara Temple of Santa Kondapuram village. After her husband’s death her son is performing the Archakatvam. The temple possesses the lands above mentioned which are granted towards ‘service inam’ and are also registered in the Inams Fair Register of Mamiduru village. In 1996 when the Endowments Department tried to interfere under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 a suit was filed in O.S.No. 78 of 1996 in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur seeking injunction. The said suit was decreed. Recently, the petitioner came to learn that the third respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Brahmasamudram mandal had addressed a memo to the Deputy Surveyor, Brahmasamudram seeking information regarding the lands above mentioned and regarding preparation of sub-division records and was in the process of preparing sub-division in respect of the lands in survey Nos. 110 and 115 of the village from the memo, the petitioner learnt that the Revenue officials were collecting information regarding these lands for the purpose of alienating them in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste of the village. Hence the writ petition. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner is neither a proper nor a necessary party and is seen to have no locus to maintain the writ petition. Even according to the writ petition, the lands are granted by way of ‘service inam’; and according to the petitioner herself, the ancestors of her father-in-law up to her late husband and after his demise, his son who were Archakas are entitled if at all to an interest and income out of the land. The petitioner has no legal nexus with the land in question. It is however open to the appropriate person aggrieved to pursue appropriate remedies as and when a cause of action arises or any grievance subsists. Hence no relief can be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 17-04-2008 Pvks/*