APHC010507432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1057 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-36 [3446] Yalla Rama Maheswari and others ...Appellants Vs. Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D V Sasidhar Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : Mr. Kappera Koteswara Rao [SC for Endowments,AP Region], GP for Endowments CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 16th October, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 28.02.2025 passed in WP.No.31347 of 2014. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a Mandamus for implementation of the directions issued by the Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by virtue of which the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, had been directed to launch disciplinary action against the Archaka i.e., Sri Peddinti Venkata Ramana, who is respondent No.5 in the writ petition. 2 HCJ & RRR, J WA_1057_2025 The basis of the direction appears to be that the said respondent No.5 had sold away the temple properties despite the fact that there was an injunction issued against such a sale and also when pattadar passbooks had been issued in favour of the temple. 3. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, directions were issued by the learned single Judge directing the 4th respondent therein to implement the order of the Government, dated 29.12.2006, as also to take steps to take over the possession of the land in question and handover the same to the petitioner temple. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants represents the interest of those who had purchased the land from respondent No.5 in the writ petition against whom disciplinary action was directed to be taken. 5. It is stated that in the normal course, an opportunity of being heard ought to have been granted to the appellants as the direction of the learned single Judge would directly result in their dispossession which would be carried out in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. We see some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. An opportunity of being heard ought to have been granted to the appellants by the learned single Judge. 7. Be that as it may, while the disciplinary action ordered to be taken against respondent No.5, who is no more, would have been justified at the 3 HCJ & RRR, J WA_1057_2025 time when he was still alive, yet no direction could have been passed for restoring the land to the temple in the absence of an opportunity of being heard afforded to the appellants herein who are stated to have been the vendees in the sale made by the said respondent No.5. 8. Be that as it may, we allow the Writ Appeal. The judgment and order impugned is set aside. Registry is directed to list WP.No.31347 of 2014 before the appropriate Bench as per Roster for consideration afresh, on 03.11.2025. The appellants are incorporated as party respondents in W.P.No.31347 of 2014 and shall figure as respondent Nos.6 to 9. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Vjl