THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.18659 of 2011 Dated 18th August, 2011 Between: Jalla Lalitha …Petitioner And The Gudivada Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Municipal Office, Gudivada, Krishna District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.D.Radha Rani Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5: Smt.V.Sujatha The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in taking action against respondent Nos.2 to 5 for their illegal and unauthorised construction activity in the road margin of Gudivada Municipality, near premises bearing D.No.8/2-23 of NTR Nagar, Gudivada Municipality, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt.D.Radha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing respondent No.1 and Smt.V.Sujatha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. The petitioner is the resident of house bearing D.No.8/2-23 of NTR Nagar Colony. Just adjacent to the petitioner’s house, a temple has come up over the land, which admittedly belongs to respondent No.1-Municipality. The grievance of the petitioner is that while not taking action against the unauthorised construction of temple over its land, respondent No.1 has further acquiesced in respondent Nos.2 to 5 in seeking to proceed with further construction adjacent to the existing temple by digging pits. No counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that a temple is in existence on the open land from the year 1986, that regular poojas are being performed in the said temple and an electrical connection was sanctioned in the year 1989. A committee was constituted for the temple, which was registered under the A.P.Societies Registration Act, 2001 with register bearing No.138/07. It is further stated that on 15.10.2009, respondent Nos.2 to 5 submitted a plan to respondent No.1 for grant of permission for developing the temple and that the said application is pending. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the temple is presently having tin sheet roof and that as the roof has reached dilapidated condition, renovation work is commenced and the petitioner to sub serve her personal interest with a view to utilise the vacant municipal land for funning a flour mill, has filed this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1, on instructions, submitted that on receipt of the notice in the writ petition, respondent No.1 has stopped construction activity by respondent Nos.2 to 5 and that necessary steps are being taken to prevent any such construction over the municipal land without permission from respondent No.1. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submitted that except changing the roof of the existing temple, her clients are not raising any further constructions. In my opinion, respondent No.1 ought to have been vigilant in preventing misuse of its property and also raising constructions without its permission. The fact that a temple is allowed to come into existence some decades back does not appear to be in dispute. However, in the guise of allowing the structure to exist, respondent No.1 cannot permit further constructions to be made over its land without its prior approval. Inasmuch the learned Standing Counsel has assured on behalf of respondent No.1 that no fresh constructions will be allowed to take place in and around the existing temple without the prior permission of respondent No.1, the writ petition is disposed of by placing on record this submission with the further direction to respondent No.1 not to permit raising constructions by respondent Nos.2 to 5 or anyone else over the land belonging to the municipality without granting permission in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.22528 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3005 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th August, 2011 VGB