Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj A Registered ... vs The Govt Of A.P 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1410 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                           AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                          WRIT APPEAL No.955 of 2009

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of an order, dated

24.06.2009 passed in W.P.No.1721 of 2009 by the learned Single

Judge dismissing the writ petition.


        The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was

preferred by Sri Shirdi Sai Samaj, a registered society, stating that

the    appellant/petitioner            society      and      its      devotees   are   being

restrained from using 300 square yards of area, which is earmarked

for Sri Shirdi Saibaba Statue Temple. The facts of the case

establishes that the controversy involved in the present writ appeal

stands concluded on account of an order passed on 24.04.2003 in

W.P.Nos.5902 and 1354 of 1998. This Court, in the aforesaid cases,

has passed the following common order:-

                 "Therefore, for the above reasons, these two writ petitions
        are disposed of with the following observations and directions:

        (i)      Notwithstanding any order passed by any Civil Court and
        the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall immediately take action
        for demolishing and dismantling all structures, which have come
        up in the open area admeasuring 2897 sq. yards in the lay out
        approved by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,
        whatever be the amount spent on such structures, forthwith. The
        Municipality may take police help if necessary. It is made clear
        that all the Associations espousing the cause and public interest
                                           2



      of the residents are before this Court and no further notice is
      necessary to anybody;

      (ii)    The actual area occupied by Shirdi Sai Baba Temple shall
      be excluded and other structures, be it, temporary or permanent,
      shall also be dismantled and removed forthwith.           The area of
      about 2,597 sq. yards after excluding 300 sq. yards occupied by
      the temple shall be developed as a park and compliance report
      shall be filed in this Court, within a period of three months by the
      learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality;

      (iii)   It is not denied that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has
      already been sanctioned.       Further, the learned counsel for
      Bagyanagar Colony Welfare Association, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu,
      submits that the members of the Association will be depositing an
      amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the Municipality within a period of
      one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, and
      the same is recorded;

      (iv)    The Municipality shall commence the work of park
      forthwith without waiting for the petitioner to deposit the amount
      of Rs.50,000/-; and

      (v)     As   and      when   the        Municipality   requests,   the
      Superintendent of Police shall send a contingent of police for
      removing the illegal structures."



      The aforesaid order makes it very clear that in the earlier

round of litigation, the respondents were directed not to touch the

300 square yards of the area occupied by the temple and about

2597 square yards of area was to be developed as park. Meaning

thereby, 300 square yards of area was held to be in exclusive

possession of the temple and the respondents were directed not to

interfere with its possession. The order passed by the learned Single

Judge was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court as well as by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is pertinent to note that after the judgment was delivered on

24.04.2003, again the present appellant/petitioner society preferred

a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.15250 of 2004 alleging interference of its

possession by the Municipality and the police and this Court by an

order dated 03.11.2004 has passed the following order:-

"So, from the pleadings it is clear that Shirdi Sai Baba Statue Temple is in existence in an extent of 300 sq. yards only at one place and not in two different places as claimed by Shirdi Sai Samaj. As a matter of fact, the Shirdi Sai Samaj filed WAMP 298 of 2004 in W.A.Nos.746, 748 and 848 of 2003 to exclude an extent of 300 sq. yards for the temple to the effect that an extent of 100 sq. yards occupied by Dwarakami Temple and 200 sq. yards occupied by the main temple. The said clarification petition was dismissed holding that the order passed by the court on 11.9.2003 is very clear and unambiguous. That order became final. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merit inasmuch as the petitioner has already availed the remedy and now the petitioner cannot turn round and say that the respondents are interfering with the two temples located at two different areas. The order of the learned single Judge is very clear that the area of 300 sq. yards occupied by the Shirdi Sai Baba Statue Temple shall only be excluded from demolition. The order of this court is very clear that an extent of 300 sq. yards is occupied by Shirdi Sai Baba Temple.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed."

The judgment in the aforesaid case was delivered in 2004 and

again in 2009 a writ petition was preferred stating that the Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) through its Deputy

Commissioner was interfering with the possession of the appellant/

petitioner society and it was threatening to demolish the structures.

The learned Single Judge has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition

stating that the lis involved in the case has already been decided

and that the temple is permitted to occupy 300 square yards of

area, which has been segregated and the remaining area has to be

developed as park.

In the considered opinion of this Court, there cannot be any

resolution of dispute again and again as is being prayed by the

present appellant/petitioner society. The orders passed by this

Court in earlier round of litigation make it very clear that the

appellant/petitioner society has been permitted to continue the

possession of the temple, which includes the 300 square yards of

area and insofar as said 300 square yards of area is concerned, the

respondents have been directed not to interfere with the possession

of the appellant/petitioner society. Therefore, the learned Single

Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

The respondents shall certainly be free to develop the park as

directed in the first round of litigation vide order, dated 24.04.2003

and therefore, insofar as the remaining area is concerned, after

excluding the 300 square yards area of temple, the respondents are

certainly free to proceed ahead to develop the park, if the same is

not developed so far. This Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 23.03.2022 pln