JUDGMENT :

(D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.)

1. This writ appeal has been filed by the Sports Department, State of Andhra Pradesh questioning the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23016 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021.

2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-society for a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents-State and questioning the impugned notice dated 23.11.2020 along with the action of the respondents in affixing notice to the gate of the stadium and high-handedly breaking open the existing locks and putting new locks on the stadium and denying entry to the members of the society and others.

3. In the writ petition, the society claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the Dhulipalla Veeraiah Choundary Memorial Stadium. It is stated that the land belonging to the Zilla Parishad School; the super structure was constructed by the society and it is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that the respondents high-handedly entered into the premises, broke open the existing locks and fixed their locks on the stadium and prevented the entry of the members of the society into the stadium. This action was questioned. The learned single Judge, in the course of his order held that the action of the respondents in breaking open the locks, affixing new locks and preventing the petitioner and others from entering into the Stadium is illegal. A direction was given to remove the locks and to allow the petitioner-society to function from the stadium till it is lawfully evicted from the premises. An option was given to the respondents to proceed as per law to evict the petitioner-society. This order is assailed in the writ appeal.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Sports argued the matter at length. He points out that the petitioner-society is not claiming any title to the land in question and that the averments in the writ petition do not show that the entire stadium i.e. the super structure was constructed by the society alone or that the society is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He points out that the documents filed show that Public Health Department was entrusted with the construction of the stadium that funds were donated by Members of Parliament etc., and that the sports authority had also donated a sum of Rs.89 lakhs and the construction was supervised by the Government Officials alone. It is pointed out that the stadium was thus completed in all respects by Officers of the State representing the various departments, but in view of the failure of the Public Health Department to physically handover the stadium, the writ petitioner-society claims to have exclusive possession of the premises. Learned Government Pleader submits that no record is filed to show that the super structure was completed solely by the petitioner-society or that they were put in exclusive possession of the premises. He also argues that no permission was granted to take over the management and to control the entry of people or the usage of the facilities. He points out that in the counter affidavits filed, the right of the petitioner-society was expressly denied and despite the same, he submits that learned single Judge came to a conclusion that the petitioner-society was in exclusive possession of the property. He points out that settled possession must be effective, undisturbed and to the knowledge of the owner. For this proposition, learned Government Pleader relies upon Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, (2019) 11 SCC 309. He also argues that since the petitioner is not claiming any right in the property and is only alleging that due process was not followed and the rules of natural justice are not followed, a writ is not maintainable and in particular, a Mandamus cannot be sought. He relies upon Mani Subrat Jain and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1977) 1 SCC 486. Therefore, learned Government Pleader argues that the single Judge committed an error in granting a Mandamus in favour of the petitioner-society. In the