ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The issue raised in both these cases is concerning encroachment of endowment lands in Sy. Nos. 1 to 101 of Purushothapatnam Village, Yetapaka Mandal of Alluri Sitharama Raju District (formerly within East Godavari District), claimed to be belonging to Sree Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam. Hence, both these cases are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The prayer in W.P. (PIL) No. 169 of 2022 reads thus:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in the larger interest of public declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 10 in not safeguarding and not prohibiting illegal encroachments and illegal constructions by various land grabbers over the lands admeasuring Ac. 917-00 cents, situated in Sy. Nos. 1 to 101, Purushttamapatnarn village, Yetapaka mandal, Alluru Seetha Rama Raju District, State of Andhra Pradesh, belonging to Sree Sita Ramachandra Swamy Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of settled principles of Law and violation of Article 25 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 10 to take immediate steps for removal of encroachments and secure and safeguard the land admeasuring Ac. 917-00 cents in Sy. Nos. 1 to 101 situated in Purushothampatnam village, Yetapaka village, Alluri Seetararaju District and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. The prayer in W.P. No. 4533 of 2022 reads thus:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking any steps for prevention of the encroachments and not taking action for removing the encroachments already made in the lands in Sy. Nos. 1 to 101 admeasuring Ac.889-50 cents situated at Purushothapatnam, Yetapaka Mandal, East Godavari District belonging to the Petitioner and granting mining leases, construction permissions, electricity and water connections in respect of the said land in favour of the encroachers of the said land is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the Respondents are not entitled to grant mining leases, construction permissions, electricity and water connections to any person in respect of the said land and that the Petitioner Temple is entitled for prevention of the encroachments and removal of the encroachments already made in the said land and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. At the outset, it is to be noted that some private respondents have themselves joined as parties to W.P. No. 4533 of 2022 by filing an implead application. However, we make it clear that we are not venturing into any independent claims of any particular individual, and owing to the lis involved, we will only deal with the issue of duty and responsibility of the State and its authorities in protecting the endowment lands from encroachments.

6. The issue of encroachment of government lands/public utility lands vested in the State, which are meant for common benefit of individuals, was considered in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, while dealing with a case of encroachment of village pond. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, having noted its earlier decisions in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999 (6) SCC 464, Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 and Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Ka