Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7910
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Talari Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 16405 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Bala Krishna Mandapati
For the Respondents: GP for Municipal Admn and Urban Dev
Unauthorized constructions on public lands violate constitutional provisions, and authorities must enforce the law against such encroachments effectively.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25 - The petitioner challenges a notice issued regarding unauthorized construction of a temple on public park lands, asserting its arbitrariness and illegality. The court reaffirmed its prior order barring unauthorized constructions in public places and emphasized the responsibilities of officials in enforcing the law regarding public space. (Paras 8-10)
(B) Judicial Oversight - The court criticized the respondents for failing to take action against illegal encroachments, reiterating that the existence of a temple does not exempt encroachers from eviction. This refusal to act constitutes a dereliction of duty to uphold the rule of law. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner aims to halt a notice relating to the construction of a temple in a park, asserting violations of constitutional rights and illegal engagement by local authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court directed local officials to act decisively against unauthorized structures in public spaces, mandating compliance within two months.
Issues: The key issues involved the legality of constructing a temple in a public park and the responsibilities of government officials in enforcing laws against such encroachments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized constructions in public spaces are strictly forbidden and emphasized the need for district authorities to enforce compliance with prior judicial directives effectively.
Result: The court extended the interim order, mandating further compliance and instructing a review of actions taken by the local government.
ORDER: .I.~i., I E£The present Writ Petition-is filed, questioning the Notice dated
18.06.2025 issued by ResPO'ndent No.4 vide Roe.No.156/2024/G1, dated 18.06.2025 pursuant tot;.the-order passed in W.P.(PIL)lNo.25 of
2020. .-` ,`.
The issue in question in this.Writ Petition is that construction' of a temple in a park area located,.-i-n Sy.Mos. 29, 31 and 32 of Bethavo[u Village, Gudivada MandaI,I under Ward-C, BIock No.7J Gudivada Municipality, Krishna District. :
The HonJble Division _B-.en'ch of this Court:, while disposing of the W.PI(P.lL)INol25 of 2020.h.e.!`d.at Paragraph 8, 9 and 10 as under:
{f8. We are also amzed ati'..the stand reflected in the reply affidavit filed both by the District Collector,o+__P€rishna District as also the CommjssIIoner of Gudivada Municipality at the:manner in which they. have not only I _>-:I, ,.
permitted the encroachment of a public place which was being used as a `~ .~ `...=' I ,.
Park but also their sheer helplessness in enforcing the provisions of law for purposes of removal of such am encroachment notwithstandillg the fact that what was constructed upon such an encroachment over a park was a temple. Merely because a temple is constructed by the encroachers over a publi`c park doe-s not in any manner absolve the encroachers nor give them a license against eviction. InabiII-ty tO act against the encroachers expressing Sheer helplessness amounts to failure on their part to enforce the Rule of Law especially law which requires them to take action against any encroachment over public spaces more so when such spaces are meant to be used as a park in a locaII-ty. So called fno objectionJ PurPOrtedly conveyed by the neighbors to the authorities regarding the encroachment also does n.ot=-,absolve the offI-CI-al respondents from discharging their duty enjoined `-upon them under law.
9. Needless to say that theApex Court, in no uncertain terms had issued directions in union of lndfl-a-and another vs. state of Gujarat and others1, that no unauthorizedJ`constructions would be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara on public streets, public parks or any ®the~r`,public places. What was stated in the said order is reproduced for faci!Fty of reference.I €c5. As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no unauthorized construction shall be carried out- or permitted in the name of temple, church, mosque or gurdwara, eta,.;`'on public streets, pub[I-C Parks Or Other public places, etc. ln respect of~the unauthorized construction of religious nature which has already takl§gT,-I,'PIace, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review theL'same on case -to-case basis and take appropriate Steps aS eXPeditiOu'S]Si':as' possible.
