LISA GILL, CJ.

This writ petition has been filed in public interest by petitioner, who claims to be a resident of Akivedu village.

It is submitted that land in question has been used by villagers partly as a public utility place known as „Racha Banda‟ and there exists Sri Gonthenamma temple of the gram devatha.

It is contended that land in question is Government land and existing building has been demolished after filing of this writ petition and an attempt is being made to construct a Ramalayam without taking any permission from Government authorities.

It is further contended that in terms of judgment dated 31.01.2018, of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. State of Gujarat & Others [SLP (C).No.8519 of 2006 and batch of other petitions] there can be no construction of any religious structures by encroachment upon Government land; therefore, action being taken by respondent No.6 in connivance with official respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for respondent No.6, at this stage, points out that WP.No.9991 of 2026 has been filed by another resident of Akivedu village claiming that inaction of official respondents in preventing private respondent from construction of a religious building on Government land which is being used as Racha Banda – public utility place, without prior permission from competent authority is illegal and arbitrary.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.6 that land in question was allotted for purpose of temple in the year 1932 and revenue records reflect the same; moreover, construction is being carried out after obtaining due permission from authorities.

In WP.No.9991 of 2026, notice was issued on 15.04.2026. Relevant portion of said order reads as under:

“Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that in the Survey No.470-12 at SC Malapeta, Akiveedu villae of West Godavari District, there exists an old dilapidated structure, which is being used as Rachha Band, a common meeting place of villagers. But, the unofficial respondents claim that it is an old dilapidated temple of Lord Sri Rama and attempting to convert the said public place into a permanent religious structure in the name of Ramalayam.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that without there being any permission from the respective Officials, no untoward action will be taken as alleged by the Writ Petitioners.

Recording the same, list the mater after Three (03) weeks.”

On a pointed query, learned counsel for petitioner fairly states that petitioner in WP.No.9991 of 2026 is indeed identically situated as the present petitioner and that prayer as addressed is also similar while vehemently arguing that as there is violation of specific directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, therefore, present writ petition has been filed in public interest as well. The same should thus be entertained and appropriate orders passed. Furthermore, after filing of this writ petition, demolition of structure in question has been carried out. This also is sufficient cause for entertaining this petition.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and have carefully perused the file.

It is a matter of record that WP.No.9991 of 2026 has been filed by an identically situated resident of Akivedu village as petitioner herein, raising similar grounds.

Notice has already been issued in WP.No.9991 of 2026 and the matter is pending adjudication. All pleas as are being raised before us in this writ petition, it is conceded, have been raised in earlier writ petition. In any case, it is always open to the present petitioner to file appropriate application for being impleaded in WP.No.9991 of 2026 and all available pleas can be raised in pending matter. It is also open to petitioner in WP.No.9991 of 2026 to file appropriate application for advancement of proceedings in case of any emergent situation as is sought to be projected before us. In the given fact