THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.2586 of 2009 Between:
Sri W. Ramakrishna Rao PETITIONER AND Sri Varaha Narasimha Swamy Devasthanams Rep. by its Executive Officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam.
RESPONDENT ORDER:
Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the respondent-temple apart from perusing the material available on record.
2. Initially the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking the following relief:
“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the right and possession of the petitioner in the land admeasuring 718 square yards in Survey No.17/1 of Cheemalapalli under the limits of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice…”
3. Now by virtue of the amendment, vide orders in W.P.M.P.No.43337 of 2014, the petitioner questions the action of the respondent in not disposing of the applications dated 17.03.2004 filed by his vendors. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that his vendors made an application for regularisation in terms of the instructions of the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue (Endts.IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000, and G.O.Ms.No.1350, Revenue (Endowments IV) Department, dated 26.12.2003.
4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-temple, stating that the vendors of the petitioner paid the amounts for regularisation of land, after the expiry of the appointed date, i.e., 30.04.2004. It is further stated that the respondent-Devasthanam filed an application vide W.P.M.P.No.18570 of 2007 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005 before this Court, seeking permission of this Court to proceed with the Land Regularisation Scheme as provided in G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.08.2000, and the same is pending. While referring to the same, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that it is not possible for the respondent to consider the application for regularisation.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the application filed by the vendors of the petitioner may be directed to be considered, subject to the out come of the above said application. This Court considers the said request as reasonable one.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider the application dated 17.03.2004 filed by the vendors of the petitioner in accordance with law, after the disposal of W.P.M.P.No.18570 of 2007 pending before this Court, and after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Since there has been interim orders of status quo pending, the writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to continue the said order pending such exercise. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
18th November, 2014 Js.