Back
2019 Supreme(AP) 30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, JJ.
Raghupatruni Chiranjeevi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
WP(PIL) No. 85 of 2018
Decided On : 05-02-2019
For the Appellant : Sravan Kumar Naidana
For the Respondent: Government Pleader, K. Lalitha, SC, Ravi Kodaveeti and P. Roy Reddy
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Pro bono litigation – Challenging inaction of respondent to declare action of respondents in allowing construction of function as illegal and without permission and also to declare action of respondents in not taking action against illegal construction of function hall, bring carried by 9th respondent on land of aforesaid temple as illegal – Challenged – Held, In pro bono litigation,Court issue necessary directions to compensate loss caused to temple – Demolition of function hall constructed by APTDC in site is in utter violation of covenants of lease, which may result in substantial loss to APTDC, which is a State instrumentality, being a Government Corporation – If, existence is allowed to continue, directing it to pay certain amount to temple, by way of compensation every year, it would benefit not only devotees/pilgrims, but also temple – Therefore, to avoid unnecessary substantial loss to APTDC, Court find it is a fit case to direct 4th respondent to get lease amount payable for function hall be determined Independently, through Roads & Buildings Department – Writ petition disposed of (Para 40 and 41)
Facts of the Case:
Challenging inaction of respondent to declare action of respondents in allowing construction of function as illegal and without permission and also to declare action of respondents in not taking action against illegal construction of function hall, bring carried by 9th respondent on land of aforesaid temple as illegal
Findings of the Case:
In pro bono litigation,Court issue necessary directions to compensate loss caused to temple – Demolition of function hall constructed by APTDC in site is in utter violation of covenants of lease, which may result in substantial loss to APTDC, which is a State instrumentality, being a Government Corporation – If, existence is allowed to continue, directing it to pay certain amount to temple, by way of compensation every year, it would benefit not only devotees/pilgrims, but also temple – Therefore, to avoid unnecessary substantial loss to APTDC, Court find it is a fit case to direct 4th respondent to get lease amount payable for function hall be determined Independently, through Roads & Buildings Department
Result: Writ petition disposed of
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. The first petitioner-Sri Raghupatruni Chiranjeevi is a practicing Advocate in Amadalavalaa Town, Srikakulam District, whereas, the second petitioner-Sri Telugu Appala Suryanarayana is the Ex-Committee Member of Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District, resorted to this pro bono litigation, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the inaction of the 2nd respondent to declare the action of the respondents in allowing the construction of function hall by the 9th respondent in the land of Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli, as illegal and without permission and also to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not taking action against the illegal construction of the function hall, bring carried by the 9th respondent on the land of the aforesaid temple as illegal.
2. The petitioners, while highlighting the history of the temple town i.e., known as Sthalapuranam in vernacular language, contended that, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli, possessing land of an extent of Acs. 2-68 cents in Sy. No. 12/1 situated at Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District. Out of the total extent of Acs. 2-68 cents possessed by the temple, the then Government made a proposal to construct T.T.D Kalyana Mandapam in an extent of Ac. 1-20 cents and remaining land admeasuring Ac. 1-48 cents was allotted to Budget Hotel. For construction, of Kalyanamandapam Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) Board in its Resolution No. 656 dated 21.5.2010 has resolved to construct TTD Kalyanamandapam at Arasavalli duly dismantling the existing structures and accorded administrative sanction for Rs. 165.00 lakhs. Further, the Commissioner of Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Rc. No. L1/38917 dated 16.11.2010 has issued proceedings in which it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner & Executive Officer, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli stated that the said land was allotted to the Archakas by the Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 1388 dated 29.10.2007 and the Archakas submitted the written consent for allotment of land for the purpose of construction of TTD Kalyanamandapam. As per the proceedings, TTD has to construes Kalyanamdapam within a period of two years on the land admeasuring Ac. 1-20 cents subject to the conditions.
3. For construction of a Budget Hotel in Ac. 1-48 cents, the Endowments Department entered into Lease Agreement with the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Corporation in the year 2010-2011 on condition that APTDC has to pay annual rent Rs. 3,22,344/- to the Temple and at the end of expiry of lease period, the amount due payable by APTDC to the Temple was Rs. 16.11 lakhs on five years lease. Further, APTDC issued online tender notice to the public dated 20.1.2017 inviting bidders and after scrutiny, the APTDC found successful bidder/9th respondent. The said bidder/9th respondent has entered into service contract/agreement with the APTDC in relation to operation and maintenance of hotel in Arasavalli, but, not for any developments to be made in it. The said bidder/9th respondent while running the Budget Hotel and continuing in possession, started construction of Function Hall illegally adjacent to Budget Hotel without any permission. The 9th respondent is continuing the said construction and the illegal acts of the 9th respondent in connivance with APTDC and the said constructions are liable to be removed as it is in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease and it is prejudicial to the public interest and therefore, prayed for the relief stated supra.
4. The 2nd respondent/Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh filed counter alleging that the Temple is an ancient Temple under the control of Endowments Department as per Notification under Section 6(a)(ii) if the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Hindu, Act 30 of 1987, and it is und
