APHC010119342017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31539/2017 Between: 1. STANTON MEMORIAL TELUGU BAPTIST CHURCH NO.814,, STANTON COMPOUND . KURNOOL - 518004 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY U. KRUPADANAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER KURNOOL. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KURNOOL DISTRICT, AT KURNOOL. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (MAUD) DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TOWN SURVEYOR, KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KURNOOL. 5. THE CITY PLANNER, KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KURNOOL. 6. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KURNOOL. RR 3 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT'S ORDER DT. 28.08.2025 IN I. A. NO. 1 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M. Corporation in Rayalaseema region In The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have been allotted Ac.0.56½ cents of the land construction of a church in the year 1959. The foundation stone for the church was laid in the year 1960 and it was inaugurated on 19.11.1978. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a dispute with regard to Ac.11.76 cents, which was allotted to ECM High School for Girls and an extent of Ac.0.56½ cents was allotted for the church. It is submitted that the 1st respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, calling upon the petitioner to remove the illegal construction. The said impugned proceedings dated 14.11.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the church was completed and inaugurated about 40 years ago prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings. It is submitted that the title of the property is not in dispute and submits that the relevant documents relating to allotment shall be filed before the competent authority, if so warranted. 3. It is further submitted that the writ petition filed by ECM Girls High School claiming Ac.11.86 cents, challenging the layout, which was subsequently sold to various third parties was allowed by this Court and the respondents therein had filed W.A.No.696 of 2016, which is pending consideration along with this batch of appeals. It is submitted that even if the said Writ Appeal is dismissed, the petitioner’s right and possession over Ac.0.56½ cents would not be affected. It is also submitted that, as per the 4 survey report conducted by the 1st respondent, the property of the petitioner lies in Survey No.123 and not in Survey Nos.123(P), 125(P), 126(P) and 127(P). 4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the purchasers of land admeasuring Ac.11.98 cents was subsequently converted it into a layout and sold it to various parties, which founds part and parcel of Survey Nos.123(P), 125(P), 126(P) and 127(P) and ECM School has been claiming the said property. The petitioner is not a party to the writ petition filed by ECM School and so also the petitioner is not a party to the Writ Appeals filed challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.5877 of 2003. 5. Even as per the counter submitted by the 1st respondent, it appears there is a title dispute between ECM School and the petitioner. However, the survey report filed by the petitioner would show that the land admeasuring Ac.0.56 ½ cents, over which the church is constructed, falls in Survey No.123. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. The allotment of land for the construction of the church was made in the year 1959 and subsequently foundation stone was laid for construction of the church in the year 1960. The church was constructed and inaugurated in the year 1978 and ever since, the said premises have been used as a place of worship by the followers of that faith. 5 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s property is situated in Survey No.123, which is distinct from Survey Nos.123(P), 125(P), 126(P) and 127(P). It is for the parties claiming title to approach the competent Court for adjudication. However, for the limited purpose of considering the Writ Petition, the impugned proceedings dated 14.09.2017, calling upon the petitioner to remove the construction cannot sustain the scrutiny of law, as the constructions were completed about 40 years prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings. 9. In view of the above considerations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the endorsement dated 14.09.2017 is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 11.09.2025 SR