PANTLA SIMHACHALAM Vs. VENUGOPALA SWAMY VARI DEVASTANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are in uninterrupted possession of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs.1-55 cents in Sy.No.163/3 of Salur Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District belonging to the 1st respondent devastanam. The 1st petitioner is in possession of the said land uninterruptedly for the last 50 years in continuation of his ancestors and their family were eke out their livelihood by cultivating these lands on payment of yearly makthas. The schedule mentioned land is a land that is rain-fed and only dry crops are grown like pulses, sunflower etc., It is stated that the 2nd petitioner, who is now cultivating the said land jointly had come into possession only in the year 2013, and thus, both of them are cultivating the said land jointly by paying the maktha to the temple for cultivating the said land. It is stated that the petitioners herein had paid a total amount of Rs.13,000.00 on 7/2/2016 which is also acknowledged by the Manager of the 1st respondent temple. The petitioners who were in uninterrupted possession were earlier issued a notice in the year 2001 and at that point of time, the 1st petitioner was in possession and consequently the 1st petitioner also gave a reply to the Executive Officer, after which, further action was dropped. Consequently one more attempt was made by the 1st respondent in the year 2003 directing the 1st petitioner herein to vacate the schedule mentioned property by making various allegations, thus, directing the 1 st petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the land, failing which, legal action will be taken. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner, again replied back to the said notice, and once more, further action was dropped by the Manager of the subject temple. Having dropped further action once more, the 1st petitioner was issued a notice bearing Re.No.Nil/2013, dtd. 16/12/2013, wherein, he was asked to handover the vacant possession of the land, failing which, appropriate action will be taken.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 25/10/2016, has granted interim direction that "the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land".