G Moorthy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2940 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              WRIT PETITON No.15602 of 2021

ORDER:

The case of the petitioners is as follows:

2. The ancestors of the petitioners had purchased a land

near the 3rd respondent temple, under a Registered document

dated 02.07.1958. When this land was subsequently taken over

by the 3rd respondent temple for development of the temple, the

petitioners were promised an alternate site instead of

compensation, so that they could erect small shops.

Accordingly, they were permitted to erect said shops in

Sy.No.2/1 and 3/1 of Punyasamudram of Thavanampalli

Mandal, Chittoor District around the 3rd respondent temple. As

the 3rd respondent temple, subsequently sought to evict the

petitioners, O.S.NO.118 of 2012 on the file of the Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor was filed for a permanent

injunction. This suit was dismissed vide Judgment dated

31.10.2016. Thereafter, the temple authorities permitted the

petitioners to run the shops in Sy.No.2/1 and 3/1. At this

stage, the 3rd respondent temple sought to evict the petitioners

and demolish the shops without any notice and without

following any procedure established by law.

3. Aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd respondent temple

seeking to evict the petitioners without allotting any alternate

site, the petitioners after issuing the legal notice dated

12.04.2021, have now approached this Court.

4. Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd

respondent temple would submit that the petitioners do not

have any legal right to insist upon allotment of shops in favour

of the petitioners, and that the some of the shops of the

petitioners have already been removed.

5. Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalva, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that out of the six petitioners, about two

petitioners have been evicted and the remaining four petitioners

continue to remain in possession of their shops.

6. The issues raised in O.S.No.118 of 2012 in the Court of

the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor are essentially the

same issues which are being raised in the present writ petition.

The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor by his Judgment and

decree dated 31.10.2016, had held that the petitioners had no

right or title in relation to the land that is now being claimed by

them and would not be entitled for the relief of permanent

injunction.

7. In the circumstances, this Judgment which has become

final, as no appeal has been filed against the said Judgment,

would hold the field and the petitioners cannot claim any right

to continue in possession of the shops. However, the

respondents would have to evict the petitioners strictly in

accordance with the procedure established by law and as such,

any eviction of the petitioners by the respondents shall be done

in accordance with the provisions of law.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

09th August, 2021 RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITON No.15602 of 2021

09th August, 2021

RJS