IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a deity can be represented in legal proceedings by a priest, and that proper representation is essential in land acquisition cases.

ORDER :

(Subba Reddy Satti, J.) :

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue a Writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to I.A.No.89 of 2023 in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2020 dated 17.08.2023 on the file of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam to implead the petitioner as one of the party in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2020 …”

2. a) Petitioner-temple represented by its Priest filed the above writ petition. In the affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that one Cheruvu Sarojanamma, W/o Appalaswamy Naidu, absolute owner of Ac.19.20 cents in S.No.28/1 of Rajayyapeta village, Nakkapalli Mandal donated the land in favor of Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple and Grama Devatha about five decades ago. After donating the land to the temple, Sarojanamma lived in the village and died in the year 1996. She had no issues and her husband pre-deceased her. The property was mutated in the name of deity, and pattadar passbook was also issued. The petitioner and his father being the priests used to pay land revenue. The petitioner’s father used to conduct auction of leasehold rights and the income derived therefrom has been utilized for conducting Rama Navami Utsavam and Grama Devatha festivals etc., every year. The deponent is discharging the duties as a priest and conducting festivals with the support of village elders and others.

b) The land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), APIIC, Visakhapatnam vide Award No.25 of 2017 dated 05.12.2017. One Ch.Swamy Naidu, claiming to be the son of the late Sarojanamma made a claim before the LAO. The deponent and other villagers including respondents 3 to 6 filed objections petition before the LAO. Respondents 3 to 6 filed W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017 and the same was disposed of. LAO referred the matter to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam, and the same was numbered as LAOP No.4 of 2020. In the said LAOP, Ch.Swamy Naidu, was shown as claimant and Pikki Rambabu, Y.Appalaraju, Pikki Nookaraju and Y.Nagesh as rival claimants. The temple was not shown as a rival claimant. Hence, I.A.No.89 of 2013 in LAOP No.4 of 2020 was filed to implead the temple represented by the priest as a proposed rival claimant. The said petition was dismissed by the authority on 17.08.2023. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed.

3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 1st respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that during enquiry Ch.Swamy Naidu filed a claim petition before the LAO for payment of compensation in respect of Ac.19.20 cents in S.No.288/1. The said Swamy Naidu did not produce any valid documentary evidence, except the copies of revenue records, 10 (1) adangal copies. Some of the villagers filed representation stating that the land belonged to Ramalayam and that they did not know any person by name Cheruvu Sarojanamma. They further stated that Ch.Sarojanamma’s name was added in computer adangal by deleting the name of Pikki Appanna (father of petitioner), who was Dharma karta of Ramalayam, but they also failed to produce any documentary evidence.

b) Pikki Rambabu and others have filed W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017, wherein an interim order was passed on 21.02.2017 not to make any payment either to 5th or 7th respondents therein and eventually, W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017 was disposed of on 13.03.2019 directing the LAO to refer the dispute under Section 64 of the Act, if the LAO finds that there is a real dispute as to title or entitlement of compensation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the authority, and an amo