IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8811 OF 2025 Between: Akepati Venugopal Reddy, S/o. Subaram Reddy Aged about 78 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Vontimitta Town, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District. ...Petitioner. AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa. Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division Y.S.R 3. The Revenue District. 4. The Tahsildar, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District. 5. The Vontimitta Grama Panchyath, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District. Rep., by its Sarpanch 6. Pasupuleti Krishnaiah, S/o. Siva Ramaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ Doctor R/o. Vontimitta Town, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High that in Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the particularly one in Endorsement, dated 01.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 granting for construction of Nadiveedi Gangamma Temple over the extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.1550/B of permission gramakantam land in an Vontimitta Village fields, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District at the instance despite the respondent No.5 refused for of the respondent No.6, Construction of temple over the said land stating that, the same is required that too without putting me on notice as arbitrary. for public purpose illegal, contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings inpursuance of the Endorsement, dated 01.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.4. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE, Sri M.Sudhir, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: «ef‘ APHC010167732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] St :■! MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8811/2025 Between: Akepati Venugopal Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VR REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.M SUDHIR(SC FOR APSCCFCORP HYD) The Court made the following: 2 % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8811/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the endorsement dated 01.03.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4 granting permission for construction of Nadiveedi Gangamma Temple over the gramakantam land in an extent of Ac. 0.05 cents in Sy.No.1550/B of Vontimitta Village fields, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District at the instance of the respondent No. 6 despite respondent No. 5 refused for construction of temple over the said land stating that the same is required for public purpose that too without putting the petitioner on notice as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order. ” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat/5‘^ respondent and the learned counsel for the 6’^ respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present th writ petition is filed challenging the endorsement issued by the 4 respondent dated 01.03.2025, wherein the 4*^ respondent allocated the land earmarked as Gramakantam for construction of temple of local goddess Gangammatalli in survey No.1550/B to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of Vontimitta Village, Vontimitta Mandal. 3 4^ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the th 4'^ respondent is not the competent authority for permitting the 6 respondent and others for construction of temple in the name of local goddess at the Gramakantam land. Once the land is classified as Gramakantam land and it is within the jurisdiction and vested with the Grama Panchayat, any proposed constructions including other than residential buildings should be made with the prior approval of the Gram Panchayat or concerned competent authorities. Therefore, the 6*'" respondent and others are proposed to make construction of subject temple without there being any valid permission as envisaged is contrary to the law and cannot be allowed such construction. Hence, the Writ Petition. th 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 5 respondent/Gram Panchayat submits that as per Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and building) Rules, 2002 for any construction of temple in the land situated within the Gram Panchayat limits, the Collector/2 nd respondent is the competent authority for granting permission/approval of plans. If that is so, admittedly there is no permission in favour of the 6'*^ respondent or others to make such construction. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that there is no cause of action, as of now it is only an action of allotment of land 4f- 4 said to have been made by the 4 respondent vide an endorsement ¥ dated 01.03.2025. It is onJy apprehension on the part of the petitioner that the respondents are taking steps to make construction in the name of local goddess at the subject land, without there being any permission. If the respondents intent to make any construction certainly they will follow due process and acquire permissions as required to make such constructions. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and the learned counsel for the 6'*^ respondent and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court observed that as of now no valid permission was granted for construction of any temple particularly in the name of local goddess at the subject land by the competent authority. Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and building) Rules, 2002 specifically states that the 2"^^ respondent is the competent authority to grant either approval or refusal for construction of subject temple. 8. In view of the clear and categorically admitted facts, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents more particularly the 6*'^ respondent, if he intend to make any construction in the name of local goddess, he shall obtain required permissions from the 2^^ respondent and without there being any permissions. 5 the 6 respondent cannot proceed with the construction contrary to the law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. \ \ Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT^GiSTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division Y.S.R District. 4. The Tahsildar, Vorltimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District. 5. The Vontimitta Grama Panchyath, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District. Rep., by its Sarpanch 6. Pasupuleti Krishnaiah, S/o. Siva Ramaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ Doctor R/o. Vontimitta Town, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R District.{1 to 6 by RPAD) 7. OneCCto SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri M.Sudhir, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 9. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 10. ksr HIGH COURT DATED:21/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.8811 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS