APHC010325292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMElER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 16624 OF 2025 Between: Akkala Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Akkala Koti Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. D.No.1-79, Mijnnesulthanpalem, Bellamkonda Mandal, Palnadu District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal S ecretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velaga|:)udi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, State of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Narssaraopet, Palnadu District. 4. The District Endowments Officer, Endowments Department, Palnadu District. 5. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Guntur. 6. Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, (Sri Bugganialleswara Swamy Temple), Mannesulthanpalem Village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Palnadu District, Rep by its Executive Officer. 7. Chintapalli Venkatadri, S/o. Saidaiah, aged about 68 years, R/o. D.No.221, Street No.310, Near Lakshmi Talkies, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.S/COE/350/2023 dated 11.0^.2025, according permission to take up the work of Reconstruction of Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temple to the unofficial Respondent No.7, with estimated cost of Rs.90.00 Lakhs, without issuing any stop-work order to the petitioner, and shifting/relocating the temple site to anottier adjacent place contrary to the Dharmasastras, Agamasastras, rites and rituals from the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temple as illegal, highhanded, arbitrary, and violative of/''.rticles 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India with a consequential direc ion to direct the Respondents to setaside the proceedings vide Rc.No.S/CC'E/350/2023 dated 11.04.2025, according permission to take up the work of Reconstruction of Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temple to the unofficial Respondent No.7, with an estimated cost of Rs.90.00 ..akhs forthwith to direct the Respondents to undertake construction of the Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temple in its original place. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirriumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the allotment proceedings bearing Rc.No.S/COE/350/2023, Dated: 11.04.2025, issued in favour of the unofficial Respondent No.7 forthwith to direct the Respondents to not proceed with corstruction of Sri an >7f Ramalingeswara and Bugga Malleswara Swamy Temple which is not being done in its original place. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, (Sri Buggamalleswara Swamy Temple), Mannesulthanpalem Village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Palnadu District. ...Petitioner/Filespondent No. 6 AND 1. Akkala Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Akkala Koti Redd/, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D.No.1-79, Mannesulthanpalem, Bellamkonda Mandal, Palnadu District. ... Respondents/Petitioners 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, State of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nara i>araopet, Palnadu District. 5. The District Endowments Officer, Endowments De|:)artment, Palnadu District. 6. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Deparliinent, Guntur. 7. Chintapalli Venkatadri, S/o. Saidaiah, aged about 68 years, R/o. D.No.221, Street No.310, Near Lakshmi Talkies, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. ...Respondents/Respondents ¥ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim order dated 15-07-2025 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: M/s DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRI D V SASIDHAR The Court made the following order: w APHC010325292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SM0 [3458] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE ll/IANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 16624/2025 THE Between: AKKALA MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S/0. AKKALA KO" I REDDY, AGED OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.1-79, BELLAMKONDA MAN[)AL, PALNADU 1. ABOUT 43 YEARS, MANNESULTHANPALEM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT, 1.THE STATE OF SECRETARY, REVENUE SECRETARIAT, (ENDOWMENTS) VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUIJTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PF(ADESH. 3.THE ASSISTANT NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. endowments. COMMISSIONER OF endowments OFFICER, ENDOWMENTS 4.THE DISTRICT DEPARTMENT, PALNADU DISTRICT. endowments ENGINEER, EXECUTIVE 5.THE DEPUTY DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR. (SRI lEMPLE, SWAMY SRI RAMALINGESWARA BUGGAMALLESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE), py VILLAGE, BELLAMKONDA MANDAL, PALNADU LUSTRICT, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 7.CHINTAPALLI VENKATADRl. S/0. SAIDAIAH^/VGED ABOUT 68 STREET NO.310, NEAR I AKSHMI TALKIES, YEARS, R/0. D.N0.221 2 SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...F1ESP0NDENT{S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.S/COE/350/2023 dated 11.0.f.2025, according permission to take up the work of Reconstruction of Sri R;;imalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temple to the unofficial Respondent No.7, with estimated cost of Rs.90.00 Lakhs,without issuing any stojii-work order to the petitioner, andshifting/relocating the temple site to anothier adjacent place contrary to the Dharmasastras, Agamasastras, rites and rituals from the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temple as illegal, highhanded, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India with a consequential direct on to direct the Respondents to setaside the proceedings vide Rc.No.S/COE/350/202 3 dated 11.04.2025, according permission to take up the work of Rcjconstruction of Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temphs to the unofficial Respondent No.7, with an estimated cost of Rs.90.00 Lakhs forthwith to direct the Respondents to undertake construction of the Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Maileswara Swamy Temple in its original place ;;ind pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 an Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ciicumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to suspend the allotment proceedings bearing Rc.No.S/COE/350/2023, Dated: 11.04.2025, issued in favcnur of the unofficial Respondent No.7 forthwith to direct the Respondents tc not proceed with construction of Sri Ramalingeswara and Bugga Malleswera Swamy Temple which is not being done in its original place and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased vacate the interim order dated 15-07-2025 and dismiss the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2.GP FOR SERVICES II 3. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments 4.D VSASIDHAR The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Arun Showri G, learned counsel 'or the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 2^^ to 5''^ respondents, Ms. Anne Devi Subhashini, learned Standing Counsel for the 6*'^ respondent and Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the 7*^^ respondent. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of tie 2^^ respondent 2. granting permission to the unofficial respondent to reconstruct/renovate the 6^^ respondent temple. petitioner 7‘Vespondent’s brother, who resides in USA, had offered t ) contribute funds 3. The contends that the for the renovation of the temple and accordingly approjiiched the temple The 4"^ and 6'^ respondents have granted permission to the 7'*^ respondent to renovate the temple by removing the existing structure of the temple after constructing a Balalayam. authorities for permission. The petitioner, being a devotee of the deity Bugga Ramalings'vamy, cooperated with the 7th respondent in renovating the temple. The 4th and 6th respondents prepared an estimate and plan for reconstruction, assessing the cost of 4 reconstruction at Rs . 30 lakhs. Pursuant thereto, the 7th respondent’s brother came forward to donate the said amount. A joint account was thereafter opened in the names of the petitioner and the responde it, and donations received from other donors were deposited in the said account. It is further contended that, despite repeated requests and attempts by the temple authorities 7'Vespondent failed to commence the renovation work as jugreed, and there was no further communication from him. the Accordingly, the 4*'' respondent, vide his letter dated 25.01.2023, requested the 2"^^ respondent to cancel the agreement exe(;;uted in favour of the 7‘Vespondent and issue permission to go for fresh esti nates. Thus, the 2^^ respondent cancelled the permissions granted in favour of the 7‘^ respondent and called for fresh estimates. The petitioner and other villagers approached the 4'^ respondent to allow them to renovate the temple under the donor scheme. The 4*^ respondent thus sought permission from the 2^'^ respondent. The 2^^ respondent granted permission for proceeding with the renovation work; however, he directed a sum of 1/3'^ of the estimated costs to be deposited in the 6*'' respondent temple account and to obtain fresh approvals. The petitioner had accordingly deposited the amounts and went ahead in constructing the temple. 4. It is contended that after complying with the sa ne, the petitioner went ahead in renovating the temple. Without assigning any reason the 6 respondent and his staff have asked the petitioner to Jitop the work in 5. th 5 between. And granted permission to the 7"" respondent to construct the temple dated 11.04.2025. with estimated ccist of Rs.90 lakhs, contends that the 7*’' respondent has initiate d to construct the place meant for placing the goddess idol, which is against the vide their proceedings The petitioner temple at the wishes of the villagers. Thus, approached this Court respondent temple filed counter affidavit contending that the 2"'* respondent required the 4'^ 6. The 6 after deposit of sum of Rs.13 lakhs respondent to revert back to him for necessary permissions. Without obtaining nd respondent, the petitione herein went ahead any such permission from the 2 and removed the consecrated idol. The idol was removed vyithout following the and without the permission of the prescribed procedure under Shastras appropriate authority. respondent filed counter affidavit, con ending that the then his letter dated 06.05.2023, misrepresented to the respondent issued permission for further ::ontended that there respondent, vide proceedings dated amount to be deposited into the joint account 7. The 7 Executive Officer, in S'"* respondent, informing him that the 2 nd demolition and reconstruction of the temple. It is was no such permission; the 2 nd 04.04.2023, in fact, required the maintained by the donor and the further action. Based on the proceedings dated 10.05.2023 performance of kalapakarshana the temple was demolished on Executive Officer, and submit proposals for said misrepresentation, the respondent issued for dismantling of the temple and for the and thereafter to construct Balalayam. Thus, 05.05.2023 at 8:29 PM without conducting Panchanama and the idol was also removed wi hout following the rituals. Thus, the 7*' respondent contends that the idol which was removed without following the Shastras cannot be reconsecratec. Upon bringing all respondent, the 2™' respondent issued these facts to the notice of the 2 proceedings dated 13.06.2023 to conduct enquiry was conducted, and during the course of the nd an enquiry into the matter. The enc|uiry, it had come to light that the demolition of the temple and kalapakarshanj following the principles under Agamas :i were done without Thus, disciplinary action was also proposed against the earlier Executive Officer, Sri G.Rama Koti Reddy. Thus, it has been enquired if the 1 respondent is willing for the obtaining his willingness, was required to The said iimount was also Officer submitteii respondent in turn submitted the respondent. 2 respondent issued proceedings dated 11.04.2025 favour of the respondent to rebuild the temple. construction/reconstruction of the temple. Upon plans and estimates were made, and the 7'^ responde nt deposit l/O"'^ of the estimated amount. deposited. Accordingly, the Executive 4"" respondent, the 3'"^ 08.04.2024 to the 2"*^ a report to the report dated Based on the said reports, the granting permission in 8. Learned counsel the time, the idol (Siva Lingam) panchanama was not conducted and few entire procedure that has been followed by the appearing for the 7'^ respondsnt, argues that at was removed by the petitioner herein, set of items wer;j missing and the petitioner in removing the idol and constructing rebuilt the subject temple is total contrary to the Agamas and the place where the petitioner has commenced the is not the appropriate place. construction of the temple, Learned counsel appeiaring for the 2'^'^ respondent, in reply to the submission of the learned couns el for the petitioner that the 7*^ respondent is constructing the temple in a new place than the original place where the temple was existing since time imn iemorial. 9. The gist of the argument on behalf of both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent is that both of them are ready and willing to rebuilt the temple with their funds and further contends that only one amongst them shall be permitted to construct, to the exclusion of the other. 10. Heard the submissions. As noted from the record, both the petitioner and the 7*^ respondent herein have built two units. Both parties are proposing to consecrate the Shiva Lingam in the respecti /e units they have built. Given that both parties are eager to donate their funds and time to the temple, the temple authorities, in light of the facts of the case, should not deny any of them. If it is possible to have both temples, considcjring the extent of the land, the 2"^^ respondent shall permit both petitioner and unofficial respondent to construct in their respective areas, where construction has already been commenced. The respondents shall also consult Agamashastra pundits regarding the consecration of the Shiva lingam and the Goddess. As per the advice of the Agamashastra pundits appropriale orders for the construction of the respective temples shall be passed, and iiippropriate orders shall be passed respectively for the consecration of the Shivalingam and the Goddess, as per advice of the Agamashastra pundits. 1 ill such a decision 8 is taken, both parties shall not make any further constructions. The entire process of consulting the Agamashastra pundits and iss jance of the orders shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from t ie date of receipt of the order. With the above observations, the writ pijtition is disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pendir g if any, shall stand Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT RE^TRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTOl^^FFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department A.P, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, 2. The Commissioner , State of Guntur District, A.P. of Endowments, State, oF Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, District. Narasaraopet, Palnadu 4. The District Endowments Officer, District. Endowments Department, Palnadu 5. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Depsirtment, Guntur. 6. The Executive Officer, Sri Ramalingeswara Sv/amy Temple, Mannesuthanpalem Village, (Sri Buggamalleswara Swamy Temple), Bellamkonda Mandal, Palnadu District. 7. One CC to Sri. Arun Showri G Advocate 8. One CC to M/s Devi Subhashini Anne [OPUC] [OPUC] SC For Endowments Advocate 9. One CC to Sri. D V Sasidhar Advocate [OPUC] Two CCS to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 10. [OUT] 11. Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 12. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:08/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16624 OF 2025 g n SFf m E ^ . Current section DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS