1 APHC010176742008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28198/2008 Between: 1. MANIPATRUNI SUDHAKARA RAO,, S/O. LATE NAGABHUSHANA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 17-2-61, VENGALARAO COLONY, AMUDALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI VARAHA LAXMI NARASIMHA SWAMY VARI, Devasthana, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, Rep by its Executive Officer ...RESPONDENT 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 action of the respondent in interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's vacant site admeasuring 595 Sq.yards or 497.497 Sq.mts. situated in Subramaneswaraya Swamy Nagar bearing Plot No. 5B covered by Patta No. 244, S.No. 275/1A of Adivivaram Village within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently declare the same as illegal and without any jurisdiction and consequently declare the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.28198 of 2008 This Court made the following ORDER: Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Temple submitted a judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 29.07.2025 in W.A.No.685/2025 and batch, wherein it is stated that regularization cannot be done, if the appellants failed to meet the prime criterion of being in possession of the property as per G.O.Ms.No.578. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner herein that the temple has no authority to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner i.e., vacant site admeasuring 595 Sq. Yds or 497.497 Sq. Mtrs situated in Subramaneswaraya Swamy Nagar bearing Plot No.5B covered by Patta No.244, S.No.275/1A of Adivivaram Village within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation is not valid. The entire land in Sy.No.275 is vested with the Temple. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner the Respondent temple has no jurisdiction or interfering with the peaceful possession and 4 enjoyment of the property of the petitioner is contrary to law and liable to be dismissed. 2. None appeared for the petitioner even though notice issued to the petitioner and same was returned with an endorsement “addressee left without instructions”. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for Respondent temple and perused the material placed on record. 4. It is observed that the petitioner acquired the subject property through a decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.367/2006, dated 21.10.2008 against the temple i.e., Respondent herein. The said decree and judgment in O.S.No.367/2006, dated 21.10.2008 became final and the petitioner herein is one of the member of the 3rd plaintiff i.e., Subramanyeswara Nagar Plot Purchaser Welfare Association. Therefore, in view of the decree and judgment the petitioner was granted permanent injunction against the Respondent temple. The petitioner also filed registered sale deed said to have been executed by his vendor who developed the Subramanyeswara Nagar Colony through a layout. Therefore, as contended by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, in view of the judgment and decree rendered by this Court in W.A.No.685/2025 and batch the Respondent herein is not permitted to regularize the site or plot or 5 house under the occupation of any person by way of authorized, unauthorized or even by way of encroachment. 5. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioner is contrary to law and also against the judgment rendered by the court below in O.S.No.367/2006, dated 21.10.2008. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed further by following due procedure as contemplated and by initiating appropriate legal proceedings before Court below. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 06.02.2026 krk 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.28198 of 2008 DT: 06.02.2026 krk 42