TUTTA CHINNAYYA AND OTHERS Vs. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No.22256 of 2001 was filed by writ petitioners more than 25 in number who are all the respondents in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991 against the Executive Officer of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District (the petitioner in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991) (for short, 'the temple'). The Prayer in the writ petition is to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent not receiving the amounts as directed by the Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing, Visakhapatnam vide order in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991, dated 15.03.1999 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent (Executive Officer of the Temple) to receive the amounts as passed the judgment supra and to pass such other and further orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Writ Petition No.5847 of 2002 was filed by the Executive Officer of the Temple by showing the Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing -cum -District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the Tribunal') as proforma 1st respondent and others who are no other than the petitioners in the Writ Petition No.22256 of 2001. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the direction issued by the 1st respondent -Tribunal in allowing the respondents in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991 dated 15.03.1999 permitting to continue in occupation of the site measuring 1536 Square Yards on payment of compensation as wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and declaring the said direction as void ab initio and to pass such other order or further orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) The factual background of the case is that the Temple filed L.G.C. No.11 of 1991 against the said individuals more than 25 in number before the Tribunal for eviction as land grabbers. The averments in the application under Section 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder to take cognizance of the case and to enquire and evict the respondents holding as land grabbers, in nutshell is that the land of 1536 square yards in S.No.275 of Adavivaram village belongs to the Temple and the Temple got lands in said village and four other villages and the same is not inam estate under Act 26/48 for the temple inam and the inam Deputy Tahsildar having conducted an enquiry under the A.P. Inams Abolition and Convert into Ryottwari Act, 1956, declared the lands including the land in S.No.275 as inam land in the inam village belongs to the Temple. The land also stands in the name of the temple in the A - register as hill porambok. The respondents grabbed portion of the land within the said survey No.275, Adavivaram village covered by 1536 Square Yards or so and constructed thatched houses or pucca houses without any lawful right or entitlement and thereby to be declared as land grabbers and to be directed to re -deliver vacant possession of the grabbed land to the original owner which is the temple and to award compensation for the wrongful and illegal possession of the land as per the prevailing market rate of the land of 1536 Square yards at Rs.1,26,912/ - in each of the respondents possession of the extents ranging from 30 Sq. yards to 50 Sq. yards each. The 1st respondent, main team leader, Tutta Chinnayya filed counter and others adopted and some of them remained even exparte, contending that the total extent in the occupation of Respondent Nos.1 to 16 is 18,500 square links which is occupied in the year 1977 and made constructions therein leave about the occupation of the others they do not know and they are in possession in the land over 12 years prior to the filing of the Land Grabbing Case and perfected title by adverse possession since paying property tax in their name to the Adavivaram Panchayat from the year 1987 and municipal corporation also laid cement/concrete road and electricity supply and water supply also provided to their houses as colony and the Temple is not the owner and at any rate it has no locus standi to file the Land Grabbing Case and the same is liable to be dismissed.