IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2501 of 2001 Between: 1 S.Chandran S/o Chitambaram R/o Gudur, Nellore District. 2 N. Somsundram S/o Narayana R/o Gudur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Gudur Town, Nellore District. 2 The District Collector Nellore District. .....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 an approprite, Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st Respondents in raising a pucca Rytu Bazar in part of land measuring Ac.2.00 in Survey No.577/4-2A/2A4 situated in East Gudur in Nellore District, as illegal and contrary to the orders of the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings No.Rc.E2/3201/99 dt.20.5.99, and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.N.BHUPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU} HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.2501 of 2001 O R D E R: The petitioners question the action of the respondents in constructing a Rytu Bazar in part of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. Nos.577/4-2A/2A4, situated at East Gudur, Nellore District. 2. The petitioners aver in the affidavit that the aforesaid land is part of Ac.2.00 cents of land, which is adjacent to the temple, situated at the aforesaid village and they claim that the said land is being utilised every year by the residents of the village for the religious congregation and for holding customary religious festival. It is also alleged that there was a civil dispute between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the villagers. Ultimately, an order was passed in A.S.No.21/1981, dated 24-02-1984, upholding the rights of the temple and the Government was directed not to assign the land to third parties or use the premises in such a manner as to obstruct the use of the temple. 3. It is alleged that now the Government wanted to construct the Rytu Bazar in the part of the aforesaid land, which according to the petitioners is contrary to the aforesaid directions of the Court and is also contrary to the practice i.e. holding religious festivities. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents by the Joint Collector, Nellore, wherein, he has asserted that in order to prevent encroachments cropping up on the site, the Sub Collector, Gudur, opened a park in the year 1986 covering an extent of Ac.0.87 cents with compound wall on three sides leaving the southern side open, since small trade bunks are existing on that side. It is further alleged that under a scheme of the Government with respect to the Rytu Bazar, a substantial amount was sanctioned by the Government under their proceedings No.Rc.B2/84/99-1, dated 26- 04-1999 and a temporary Rytu Bazar is sought to be constructed in an extent of Ac.50 cents and for that purpose, site was handed over to the Deputy Zonal Manager, APIIC, Nellore, on 19-07-1999. The Joint Collector further states that land will not be alienated as per the decree in the civil suit, but the said decree permits Government to make use of the site to its best advantage on occasions when there are no festivals. Accordingly, Government intends to use the said land by fixation of temporary structures and use of Ac.0.50 cents out of the total extent will not be detrimental to the performance of the festivals of the temple nor it amounts to alienation of the land by the Government. The Joint Collector further states since the open land was being used as a dump yard, the park and the Rytu Bazar have made the locality more hygienic and are in public interest and the Rytu Bazar has already been established as per the wishes of the residents of the village. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who is not able to controvert the averments in the counter-affidavit. No reply affidavit is filed disputing any of the said averments nor any tangible contention is raised to substantiate either subsisting legal rights and an injury thereto. The only ground on which stress was laid was the decree of the civil Court and from the averments of the counter affidavit mentioned above, it is clear that raising of temporary structures would not go against any direction in the decree and the respondents are utilizing of the aforesaid land in public interest and that too a small part of the same, by leaving sufficient land available for the festivals. 6. I, therefore, see no reason to sustain the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 12th December 2008 kvr