APHC010003292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SRI PRASANNA RALLAGANGAMAMBA TRUST,, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT/IVIANAGING TRUSTEE SHANTIPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P., 517423. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AP TRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DIST 4. KENAMAKANAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ARIMUTHANAPALLE VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 176/2023 SRI PRASANNA RALLAGANGAMAMBA TRUST,, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT/IVIANAGING TRUSTEE SHANTIPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P., 517423. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AP TRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA, VIJAYAWADA. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. KENAMAKANAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ARIMUTHANAPALLE VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SRI PRASANNA RALLAGANGAMAMBA TRUST,, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT/IVIANAGING TRUSTEE SHANTIPURAM VILLAGE AND ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AP KENAMAKANAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ARIMUTHANAPALLE VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM THE TAHSILDAR, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inaction of the 5th Respondent in initiating action pursuant to the Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide Roc.E2/Computer No.244896/2019, dated 4.10.2019 (File No.REV-ESECOALN(ALN) /117/2019-DYTAH(E2)) and further the action of the Respondents Nos.4, 6 and 7 in trying to interfere with the land to an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy.No.23/11, Arimuthanapalle Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, allotted to the Petitioner's Trust for constructing Sri Prasanna Rallagangamamba Temple, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and further direct the 5th Respondent to initiate further action in compliance of the Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent dated 4.10.2019 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to grant interim direction directing the Respondents Nos.4, 6 and 7 herein not to interfere with the land to an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy.No.23/11, Arimuthanapalle Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, allotted to the Petitioner for construction of Sri Prasanna Rallagangamamba Temple, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S LAKSHMI PRAMEELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 5. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 3 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5-Tahsildar is not initiating action pursuant to the proceedings of respondent No.3-District Collector vide Roc.E2/Computer No.244896/2019, dated 04.10.2019 and further action of respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 in trying to interfere with the land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in survey No.23/11, Arimuthanapalle Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, which was allotted to the petitioner’s Trust for constructing Sri Prasanna Rallagangamamba Temple. 2. Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Prameela, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for APEPDCL. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that originally the petitioner’s temple is situated in front of 132 KV Sub-station at Arimuthanapalle village, Shantipuram mandal at east side of Kuppam-V.Kota National Highway road and due to road widening, the temple is required to be shifted from that place. Based on the representation made by the villagers, respondent No.2 had issued proceedings dated 15.02.2019 allotting land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Arimuthanapalle Village for construction of the temple in the premises 4 of 132/33 KV Sub-station, Santhipuram and requested respondent No.3 to consider the same. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings directing respondent No.5 to resume the land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents to Government and set apart the same which is sub- divided and denoted as survey No.23/11 for construction of temple and send alienation proposals in favour of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dated 14.09.2012. He further submitted that till date, respondent No.5 has not taken any action. In the meantime, respondent Nos.4 to 7, without assigning any reasons and without following due process of law, are trying to interfere with the subject land allotted to the petitioner for construction of temple. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the allotment of land to the petitioner’s temple is only at the proposal stage and that no land has been allotted so far. He further contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Perusal of the proceedings of the District Collector, Chittoor vide Roc.E2/Computer No.244896/2019 dated 04.10.2019, shows that a direction was given to the Tahsildar to set apart an extent of Ac.0.05 cents which is sub-divided and denoted as survey No.23/11 of Arimuthanapalle village, 5 Santhipuram Mandal for construction of Sri Prasanna Ralla Gangamamba Devalayam in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. 7. As could be seen from the said proceedings, the alienation is only at the proposal stage, as contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. There is no material to show that the property has been alienated in favour of the petitioner’s Trust. The petitioner has to pursue the matter with the revenue authorities and ensure that the proposal for alienation is duly considered and appropriate allotment orders are issued in their favour. Until then they cannot claim any right over the subject property 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the allotment of land is only at the proposal stage and the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to substantiate that the land has been allotted in its favour, this Court cannot consider the case of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore misconceived, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. This order does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority concerned to redress its grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 28.11.2025 MP 6 541 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.176 of 2023 28.11.2025 MP