1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents No.2 to 5 in not stopping and not demolishing the illegal temple construction undertaken by the respondents No.6 to 11 in the petitioner’s property bearing house No.5-108/4, admeasuring 278.62 sq.yards, situated at Lingalaghanpur Village and Mandal, Jangaon District, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to demolish the illegal construction of the respondents No.6 to 11 in the petitioner’s scheduled property and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.5-108/4, admeasuring 278.62 sq.yards, situated at Lingalaghanpur Village and Mandal, Jangaon District and that he has obtained building permission for construction in the scheduled land by paying the required fees and respondent No.5 was also pleased to grantbuilding permission vide Proceedings No.126/BP/2023, dated 20.10.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner and his family, being devotees, constructed a small Sai Baba Temple in his place and have also started constructing a building as per the permission and sanctioned plan. According to the petitioner, when the respondent No.6, who has nothing to do with the scheduled property, tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, the petitioner filed O.S.No.693 of 2023 on the file Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon and obtained an ad-interim injunction against him vide I.A.No.908 of 2023, dated 09.11.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner was implicated in a false SC, ST atrocities case by the respondent No.6 and his henchmen and that the respondent No.6 is now preparing land for the construction of a temple with his henchmen in the petitioner’s scheduled property. Alleging that the respondents No.6 to 11 did not obtain any permission for construction of the temple and that they are trying to level the said land with the help of wage seekers and are making construction for the purpose of the temple, such as walls and some other temples. The petitioner claims to have made a representation dated 25.11.2023 to the respondents No.2 to 5 and requested to take appropriate action against illegal temple construction. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents on his representation, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the Writ Petition to demonstrate that the petitioner has obtained permission for construction and has also demolished his old house and while making construction, the unofficial respondents have obstructed and are trying to illegally occupy the land of the petitioner and are trying to construct of a temple thereon. He has also filed the photographs to demonstrate that there is a small temple in the subject land.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the Survey No.448, situated at Lingalaghanpur, is a Government land and that the Government has assigned the land admeasuring 0.05 cents to one Gangadevi Ramulu on 01.06.1990 and the said Gangadevi Ramulu has obtained house construction permission and constructed a house thereon bearing H.No.5-108/4 and the petitioner has purchased the said house through Sadabainama on 10.03.2000 and got mutated his name in the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that the premises in question was an idle land which was abutting the petitioner’s house and to safeguard the premises in question, being Government land, from landgrabbers, the villagers constructed a Sai Baba temple thereon sixteen years ago, which was given a Door No.5- 108/4/A by respondent No.5 in the name of Kalluru Yadagiri Reddy, as per the Gram Panchayat records and that the petitioner, with an evil intention to grab the property, applied for permission on 20.10.2023 stating that he will demolish the existing old house and will construct a new house in H.No.5- 108/4, but started illegally encroaching the existing Sai Baba Temple without there being any right, title or interest. It is stated that the villagers made a complaint against the petitioner on 03.11.2023 to the respondent No.5 and thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Administrative body, which conducted a General Body meeting on 07.11.2023, and the issue has been discussed elaborately and all the members passed a unanimous resolution to cancel the house construction permission issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2023 and accordingly, the respondent No.5 issued a notice to the petitioner on 08.11.2023, but the petitioner instead of responding to the said notice, has again submitted a letter dated 14.11.2023 requesting to issue a certificate with regard to his house and that the respondent No.5 has issued a certificate on 15.11.2023 by clearly mentioning the extent of land for house bearing No.5-108/4 is only 242 sq.yards. It is submitted that a suit O.S.No.693 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner, who is no way concerned with the premises in question and also that the respondent No.4 has visited the premises in question, personally to enquire into the matter and found that the petitioner is no way concerned with the premises in question i.e., H.No.5-108/4/A and had thus instructed the Mandal Panchayat Officer, Lingalaghanpur, to obtain revenue and gram panchayat records for further action. It is stated that respondent No.5 submitted a report dated 18.12.2023 to the Mandal Panchayat Officer, Lingalaghanpur, stating that the permission was obtained by the petitioner for the land under H.No.5-108/4, while the construction of Sai Baba Temple is in the land under the H.No.5-108/4/A, which stands in the name of Late Kalluru Yadagiri Reddy, S/o.Agi Reddy. Therefore, according to him, both the properties are different and the petitioner is no way concerned with the subject premises of Sai Baba temple. Along with the counter affidavit, a copy of the report and also the gram panchayat records showing the property in the name of Kalluru Yadagiri Reddy are also filed. Further, a copy of the resolution and also notice issued to the petitioner are also filed. The learned standing counsel also filed the copies of photographs showing the building of the petitioner and the open place opposite to the building which is the place where the temple is situated and submitted that the petitioner is trying to occupy the land of the temple illegally.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refuted the contentions of the respondents in the counter affidavit.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has not filed the copy of the title deed under which he claims to have purchased the land admeasuring 278.62 sq.yards along with the house. As per the gram panchayat records and the counter filed by the respondent No.5, he is the owner of land to an extent of 242 sq.yards only, whereas, he has made an application for construction of 278.62 sq.yards and without verifying the same, the gram panchayat appears to have granted permission for construction and subsequently has issued notice to the petitioner for cancellation of the said permission. He also demonstrated that the temple, which is already in existence, is in the name of one Kalluru Yadagiri Reddy and the gram panchayat records demonstrate the same. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no direction can be given to interfere with the temple land. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue the other legal remedies available to him before the Civil Court, if he so wishes.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.