HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.2698 of 2004 Date: November 29, 2011 Between: Nallapaneni Pichaiah, S/o.Kasaiah … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in taking steps for removal of ‘Kalikamatha’ idol in Sy.No.171 of Maddulapalli village, Khammam, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the chairman of Kalikamatha Ammavari Temple Committee constituted by the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that there is a land admeasuring Ac.117.00 guntas covered by Sy.No.171 of Maddulapalli village under the control of the Revenue Department, out of which pattas were issued in an extent of Ac.72.00 guntas and in the remaining land there is a temple of ‘Kalikamatha’ in which there is an idol of the deity. In spite of the same, pursuant to grant of lease in favour of the 5th respondent herein, respondents are taking steps for removal of the said idol. At first instance, interim directions were granted by this Court not to removal the idol. Alleging violation of the directions of this Court, petitioner herein has filed C.C.No.288 of 2005. A copy of the order passed in the said C.C. is placed before this Court. I have perused the same. A counter-affidavit is filed in the said C.C. by the Mandal Revenue Officer stating that there is existing lease in favour of the 5th respondent and the idol in question was installed in the intervening night of 31.01.2004 in the land leased out to the 5th respondent, illegally. Based on such stand of the MRO, the Contempt Case was dismissed. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the idol in question is existing in the land in Sy.No.171, but, in view of the stand of the respondents, it is clear that there is existing lease in favour the 5th respondent and the said idol was illegally installed in the intervening night of 31.01.2004. It is also stated that the said idol was removed by issuing notification by the Mandal Revenue Officer. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has produced a copy of the order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the District Collector. The aforesaid order is passed on the representation of the Temple Committee and land admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents in the same survey number is allotted for construction of Kalikamatha Temple on payment of market value. It is stated that such proceedings are questioned by the 5th respondent in a writ petition, which ended in dismissal and writ appeal filed there-against is pending consideration. From the stand of the respondents in the counter- affidavit filed in the contempt case referred above, it is clear that no idol was existing as on the date of passing of the interim order and the same was put up illegally during the existence of lease in favour of the 5th respondent. As much as it is stated that the said idol is already removed and further allotment is made in favour of the Temple Committee for installation of the idol, no relief can be granted. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 29, 2011 MRR