IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26754 of 2001 Between: S.Srinivas Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. Ummawada Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Superintending Engineer Irrigation, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 issue an order, direction a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in threatening Ummalada Villagers to shift the presiding deity of Devitalli Temple on the Banks of Ullakaluva in Ummalada Village of Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, or face demolition of temple as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful conduct of worship in Devitalli Temple. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish Devitalli Temple on the Banks of Ullakaluva in Ummalada Village, in Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, the present writ petition has been filed. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the said temple is more than century old, Goddess of tribal. Since the small temple was in dilapidated condition, the Gram Panchayat resolved to renovate the same and passed a resolution. The Gram Panchayat took permission from the Water users Association of the said village. Therefore, the villagers collected donations and raised a small temple for the said Goddess at height of seven feets and rituals are going on in the temple. Further, it is submitted that one G.Vara Prasad Rao, an outsider and rich businessman, has acquired about 20 cents of land near the temple adjacent to the National Highway and creating several obstacles for the construction of the temple, on the ground that the shadow of the temple would fall on his land and that the said phenomenon is inauspicious to him. It is also submitted that the said Vara Prasad filed W.P. No.13797 of 2001 without divulging the fact that there was a temple on the banks of Pantakaluva and secured directions to make appropriate enquires as to whether there are any illegal structures in the Pantakaluva. It is submitted by the petitioner that the orders passed in the said writ petition have nothing to do with the temple, but however, the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, sought a report from the officials of the Irrigation Department and the Deputy Executive Engineer conducted an enquiry, in so far as temple is concerned, and sent his report by letter dated 01-10-2001. In the said report it was clearly mentioned that there is absolutely no impediment for the flow of the water in the Kaluva. The Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department also wrote to the District Collector by letter dated 18-10-2001 in response to the enquiry that he has inspected the premises and has found that there is absolutely no impediment for flow of water in the Kaluva. It is submitted that the District Collector, pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.No.13797 of 2001, directed to evict all illegal structures immediately. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has nothing to do with the orders passed in the W.P No.13797 of 2001 and the orders passed by the District Collector. Further, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, owing to the influence of said Vara Prasad, has been threatening the villagers that the temple should be shifted or it will be demolished. Without giving any notice and without following due process of law, the 3rd respondent has absolutely no jurisdiction to say the priest and the devotees to shift the deity to another place or face demolition. Hence, the present writ petition. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed WPMP.No.33864 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents not to demolish the temple in question. This Court by order dated 28-12-2001, while issuing Rule nisi, granted interim direction, as prayed for. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, rebutting the averments made in the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that there is an old temple in the premises noted above. The contention of the petitioner is that the subject matter referred to and the orders passed in the W.P. No.13797 of 2001, pursuant to which, the orders passed by the District Collector, have nothing to do with the area wherein the temple in question is located. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is a clear report from the Deputy Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department that there is absolutely no impediment for the flow of the water in the Kaluva. It is obvious from the record that pursuant to the orders passed in W.P. No.13797 of 2001, the District Collector addressed a letter in Rc.No.3114/2001/E2, dated 04-10-2001, to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Visakhapatnam, requesting him to get the eviction work carried out and complete the same immediately. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without there being any notice and any enquiry, under the guise of the orders passed in the writ petition referred to above and also under the guise of the orders passed by the District Collector, the 3rd respondent, time and again, threatening the villagers to remove the temple in question. No authority is expected to give any threat to the villagers to do and not to do an act, without there being a valid reason under the law. Therefore, such an action on the part of the 3rd respondent is bad, illegal and contrary to law and every authority has to follow due process of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: The respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry into the matter by giving necessary notice to the Gram Panchayat in respect of any steps to be taken with regard to the temple in question and after giving an opportunity to the Gram Panchayat, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 23-04-2009 LSK