HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2974 of 2006 Date: 13.04.2011 Between : Peddyreddy Venkateshwar Rao. …….Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2974 of 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the lands admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.51/1, Ac.7.05 cents in Sy.No.52/1, Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.53/1, Ac.2.32 cents in Sy.No.53/2, situated in Dwaraka Tirumala village and Mandal, and from the lands admeasuring Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.326/1, Ac.2.27 cents in Sy.No.326/2 and Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.326/3 of Dorasanipadu village of Dwarakatirumala Mandal of West Godavari District, without issuing any notice and without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the aforesaid lands. It is his grievance that the letter, dated 13.09.2005, which is addressed by the 4th respondent-Temple is contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.11464 of 2005. With regard to the aforesaid lands, the petitioner, along with some others, earlier approached this Court without impleading the 4th respondent as party-respondent, alleging that the respondents therein were trying to interfere with their possession. At that point of time, there was a requisition sent by the 4th respondent-temple, to acquire the lands of the petitioners therein, and on the assurance that they will not be dispossessed without following due process of law, the earlier writ petition was disposed of. In continuation of the earlier requisition, another letter was addressed by the 4th respondent- temple on 13.09.2005, for acquisition of lands referred above, for public purpose. Even in this writ petition, similar allegations are made by the petitioner that respondents are trying to dispossess him without notice and without following due process of law. Although the writ petition is of 2006, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, but counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent-temple, stating that Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, is an ancient temple, situated in West Godavari District, popularly known as ‘Chinna Tirupati’. It is stated that in recent times, there is heavy inflow of pilgrims and the existing infrastructure is not sufficient to provide amenities to the pilgrims. It is also stated that the temple authorities are maintaining Veda Patasala, Gosala, Oriental School in Sanskrit and there is also a scheme for ‘Nityannadanam’ for pilgrims numbering about 1000 and marriages are also being performed in the temple premises, sometimes reaching above 200 per day, but there is no Kalyanamandapam and other infrastructural facilities. It is stated that in that view of the matter, requisition was made earlier for acquisition of lands, and in continuation of the same, present requisition is sent. When the matter is taken up, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-temple that so far, no notification has been issued under the Land Acquisition Act, to acquire the lands of the petitioner. It appears, on the requisition letter sent by the 4th respondent-temple, on mere apprehension of dispossession, this writ petition is filed. As the proceedings are only at the requisition stage and as no acquisition proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to interfere or dispossess the petitioner from his lands, without following due process of law. It is made clear that if the lands covered in this writ petition are needed for any public purpose, this will not preclude the respondents from notifying the said lands for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th April 2011 ajr