IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5539 of 2004 Between: Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, bangarupet, Kurnool Rep by Managing Trustee Sri M.V. Pedda Ayyanna S/o M.V. Annayyanna Occ: Poojari and R/o H. No. 40/70-A, Bangarupet, Kurnool ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Commissioner, Kurnool Municipality, Kurnool 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Division, Kurnool 3 The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool, 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District 5 Sri. D. Govinda Reddy S/o Timmaiah R/o H. No. 46/542, Budhavarpet, Kurnool, Kurnool 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 issue an order direction or an appropriate Writ more particulalry in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1to 4 not to withdraw the land from the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's Temple and to allot/Transfer the sameto the 5th Respondent's cinema Theatre Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Bangarupet, Kurnool, represented by its Managing Trustee, has filed the writ petition alleging that the Respondents 1 to 4 seek to withdraw some land from the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner-Temple to allot it to the 5th respondent’s Cinema theatre. According to the petitioner, it is an old and famous temple in the town. There was a Government land to an extent of Ac.1.22 cents abutting the temple. For convenience of the devotees of the temple, the 3rd respondent on 10.10.1972, granted transfer of this Government land in favour of the temple. This land was classified as ‘cattle stand poramboke’. The Tahsildar, Kurnool, was also directed by the 3rd respondent to carry out the necessary entries in Village and Taluk accounts, for the purpose of facilitating the petitioner-Temple to enjoy this land. Ever since 1972, i.e., after the transfer, the petitioner-Temple is in possession and enjoyment of the land. While so, the 5th respondent had filed O.S.No.212 of 1996 before the Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, claiming that the above land in an extent of Ac.1.22 cents belongs to the 5th respondent and sought a perpetual injunction. The suit was filed against the petitioner and his son. The suit was dismissed on a finding that the land does not belong to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent preferred an appeal thereagainst in A.S.No.117 of 1999. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. Having lost in the above litigation, the 5th respondent has approached Respondents 1 to 4 for allotment of the land for the purpose of accretion to the 5th respondent’s theatre premises. The petitioner also alleges that the 1st respondent-Municipality proposes to acquire a small extent of land belonging to Sree Rama Talkies (owned by the 5th respondent) in lieu of the land so acquired, the 1st respondent proposes to resume the site transferred to the petitioner-Temple and allot it to the 5th respondent. In the circumstances, the writ petition is filed. None of the Respondents 2 to 4 had filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent has filed a counter, denying the allegations in the writ petition, but admitting that an extent of land belonging to Sree Ram Talkies of the 5th respondent is likely to be affected in road widening programme. The 1st respondent denies that there is any proposal for transferring the petitioner’s land to the 5th respondent. It has also denied that any move is underway to demolish the buildings belonging to the petitioner-Temple. The 1st respondent’s counter in para (4) states that the 5th respondent had filed W.P.No.22526 of 2003, alleging illegal possession of his property by the State and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to follow the due process of law or to negotiate with the 5th respondent. During the process of such negotiations with the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent requested allotment of a piece of land in Sy.No.176/2 which had been transferred to the petitioner in lieu of the land belonging to the 5th respondent which is required for road widening. After having stated this fact, the 1st respondent states that as the 3rd respondent had allotted/transferred the village site poramboke to facilitate the devotees to the petitioner-Temple, the 3rd respondent is equally competent to resume a portion of the land for any other public purpose. The counter of the 1st respondent seems to be projecting an abstract theory on this aspect, as the first respondent is not aware of whether the 3rd respondent had resumed any land from the petitioner-Temple and allotted the same to the 5th respondent or intends to do so. Since the Respondents 2 to 4 have not chosen to file a counter affidavit, these respondents must be considered to have admitted the petitioner’s allegation that there is a move to resume the land allotted and transferred to the petitioner earlier in 1972, for the purpose of grant to the 5th respondent. Even if the Respondents 2 to 4 or any of them desire to resume the whole or part of the Government land allotted to the petitioner- Temple in 1972, it is obvious that they cannot do so, except by passing a formal order and after notice and opportunity to the petitioner-Temple. As and when such a notice is issued to the petitioner-Temple, the petitioner may either respond to such notice or pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. For the nonce, it is declared that the Respondents 2 to 4 cannot resume the land allotted to the petitioner-Temple without following the due process of law and by passing an order for resumption of the land, since admittedly the land was assigned to the petitioner-Temple in 1972, though it is a Government land. With the observations above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 21.4.2008 cvm