SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
G.N. Nagaraju - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and another - Respondents
Writ Petition No.13062 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri Raghavan K. Thalapaka.
For the Respondents: M/s. C. Sindhu Kumari, SC for TTD.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Issues concerning rights over land - Petitioner questioned the non-consideration of his representation regarding land for construction of a temple and community facility near a historical site - Claims rejected due to lack of rights and ownership. (Paras 1, 6, 11, 12)

(B) Legal heirs - The court rejected the claim of legal heirs of a historical figure, stating no substantive rights over the disputed land nor entitlement to compensation - No basis for petitioner's rights as descendants established. (Paras 2, 5, 12)

(C) Administrative control - The court upheld the exclusive rights of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams over the land in question, emphasizing historical assignments of land ownership to the temple. (Paras 11, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested a decision regarding land associated with a historical person, claiming rights based on familial lineage and previous judgments, but faced opposition from established land ownership by a religious trust, supported by historical precedents.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the petitioner had no enforceable rights or claims over the land in question, affirming the responsibilities of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams for its management and development.

Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim to land based on familial descent, previous court judgments, and the authority of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that historical assignments to the temple and the lack of any recognizable claims by the petitioner precluded any legal right to the land, emphasizing that petitioners had no verified connection to the site.

Result: The writ petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

B. Krishna Mohan, J.

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 08.12.2021 in respect of the petitioner’s land popularly known as Mathrusri Tarigonda Vengamamba Brundavanam admeasuring in an extent of Ac.0-12½ cents in Survey No.641 situated at Tirumala Village, Tirupati, Chittoor District for construction of Matrusri Tarigonda Vengamamba Nilayam and Dhyana Mandiram by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad for the respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner’s representation to the respondent No.2 dated 08.12.2021 is as follows :

    “(1) During the lifetime of Tarigonda Vengamamaba between 1730 to 1817, with the blessings of Swamy, she wrote some sankeertanas more than around 600 and attained Kaivalyam.

    (2) From that time to till the present generation, our heirs are performing Tarigonda Vengamamba Mutyala harati Kainkaryam in Ekantaseva in SRivari temple.

    (3) My father Late G. Subramanyam has two sons. Myself is the eldest by name G.S. Nagaraju. The second son Mr. Viswa Murthy is performing Tarigonda Mutyala Harathi Kainkaryam in Ekantaseva in Srivari temple. Tirumala.

    (4) In Tirumala at Tarigonda Vengamamba Brundavanam (Samadhi) our family descendants evne today performing daily morning and evening litting of the lamp (deeparadhanam), pooja and daily pooja Kainkaryams.

    (5) After Vengamamba Amma went into Brundavanam (samadhi) our ancestors had been protecting the surrounding place/site by performing nityapooja and protecting the same.

    (6) As per the judgment in O.S.No.211 of 1982 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor district dated 06.10.1989 obtained by my late father G. Subrahmanyam and as per the orders of RDO, Chandragiri, the Tirumala Vengamamba Brundavan in Survey No.642 in an extent of Ac.0-58 cents belongs to Tarigonda Vengamamba. In it as per Survey No.641 Ac.0-12 ½ cents along with Tarigonda Vengamamba Brundavanam, the surrounding site belongs to Vengamamba family members. As per Survey No.592, 643, Ac.0-45 ½ cents was taken over by the TTD from Kuppaiah Sarma for which they said the compensation would be paid to our family members/descendants. But TTD has not so far paid.

    (7) Hence the above said officer may consider our request by examining in detail and an appropriate decision may be taken if Tarigonda Vengamamab Brundavanam, the surrounding place/site if it is allotted, we build Tarigonda NIlayam there and still more develop the Brundavanam.

    And

    (8) We wilfully desire that the TTD gives the permissions to have Dhyana Mandiram and for the coming devotees to cater annadana Prasadam (free food) distribution in Tarigonda Vengamamab Nilayam and for construction of Tarigonda Nilayam in the surrounding places of Brundavanam. We hope and wish that justice would be done to us by following the judgment of the court and the order of the RDO.

    Sd/-

    G.S. Nagaraja

    (Heirs of Mathrusri Tarigonda Vengamamba)

    Tirupati

    Phone No.9177525712

    Address:

    Flat No.201, Lakshmi Balaji NIvas,

    Viswanath Nagar,

    Near Bonthalamma Temple,

    Karakambadi Road, Tirupati – 517 507

    Copy to

    1. …

    2. …

    3. …

    4. …

    Enclosures:

    1. …

    2. …

    3. …

    4. …

    5. …

4. The petitioner along with his brother being the plaintiffs initiated action against the respondent No.2 as defendant in O.S.No.317 of 2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, to declare that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs and the legal representatives of the deceased G. Subrahmanyam and they are entitled to perform Mutyala Harati to Lord Venkateswara at the time of ekanthaseva in Sivari temple, Tirumala and for awarding costs. The said suit was decreed partly only to the extent of declaring the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the decreased G. Subramanyam vide it’s judgment dated 26.08.2016. For the other reliefs, it was dismissed.

5. In LPA No.77 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, date

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top