APHC010402022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24748/2022 Between: 1. RAVURU SRINUVASULU REDDY, S/O LATE VENKAT REDDY AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O MUDIGEDU VILLAGE, PODALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST., A.P. 2. MR.RAVURU SUBBARAMI REDDY, S/O LATE VENKAT REDDY AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE MUDIGEDU VILLAGE, PODALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST., A.P. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PR AND RD A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PODALAKURU DIVISION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, PODALAKURU MANDALAM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE MANDAL PRAJAPARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PODALAKURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. SARPANCH, MUDIGEDU GRAMAPANCHAYATHI, MUDIGEDU VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DIST., A.P. 7. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHIRAJ, MUDIGEDU GRAMAPANCHAYTHI, SPSR NELLORE DIST., A.P. 8. SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM COMMITTEE, MUDIGEDU VILLAGE, PODALAKURU MANDALAM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY, AKKEM MOHAN REDDY 9. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 10. THE DIVISIONAL LEVEL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DIVISION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 11. THE EXTENSION OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. RR 8 AND 9 TO 11 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT.17.02.2026 IN I.A.NO.2 AND 1 OF 2023 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. iby declaring impugned relocation of Sri Sitarama Swamy temple situated in Survey number 259, Mudigedu village, Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is contrary to Agama Shastra and as volatile of law laid down by the Honble Division Bench in W.A.No 431 of 2022 dated 09-12-2022, and against Article 243-A of Constitution of India ii)Pass such other order or orders, as this Honble Court may deems fit, proper and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Prayer is amended as per the Court's Order dt.09.03.2026 in I.A.No.02 of 2026. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondent No.5 to 7 to take steps not to continue to start the construction without complying the rules and regulations of A.P. Gramapanchayathi Act,1994, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity. 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 Pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as respondents No. 8 to 10 in the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to implead the petitioner as Respondent No. 8 in the above Writ Petition and in all Misc applications as necessary and property in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner/ respondent No.5&7 to file the counter affidavit and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Honble Court may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit in the interest of Justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to permit the Petitioner herein to amend the main prayer in the Writ Petition by replacing the letters and words: Therefore, it is, prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issuean appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) to declare inaction of the respondent No.5 to 7 not to resist the plan played by some of the villagers in Mudigedu Gramapanchayathi to start the temple construction on the land of Mudigedu Grampanchayathi in Sy.No. 259 without complying rules and regulations of A.P. Gramapanchayathi Act, 1994 with an intention to damage the sentiments of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and against article-243A of the Constitution of India. ii) to consequently set aside the same by directing the respondent No.5 to 7 to take steps not to continue to start the construction without complying the rules and regulations of A.P. Gramapanchayathi Act, 1994. iii) Pass such other order or orders, as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit. proper and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. With the following letters and words: Therefore, it is, prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) by declaring impugned relocation of Sri Sitarama Swamy temple situated in Survey number 259, Mudigedu village, Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is contrary to Agama Shastra and as volatile of law laid down by the Honble Division Bench in W.A. No. 431 of 2022 dated 09-12-2022, and against Article 243-A of Constitution of India ii) Pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. AKKEM SRIHARIVIRAT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY 3. J.V.PHANIDUTH 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Akkem Sriharivirat, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1, 9 and 10, Smt. O. Sayamma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 2 to 4; Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned standing counsel for respondents 5, 7 and 11; Sri G. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6; Sri J.V. Phanidath, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No.8, in relocating Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple situated in survey No.259, Mudigedu Village, Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, contrary to Agama Shastra as well as the law laid down by the Division Bench in order dated 09.12.2022 in W.A.No.431 of 2022 and Article 243-A of the Constitution of India. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are residents of Mudigedu village, and they constructed houses in their respective lands situated on the back side of the open space in survey No.259. An old Ramalayam exists in front of the open space. While so, some villagers, due to political rivalry, are intending to start construction of a new Temple in the open land, without obtaining permission as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short „the Act‟) and the Rules made thereunder. Since the construction of a new Temple in the subject open space would affect the petitioners‟ religious sentiments in terms of Vasthu Shastra, the petitioners submitted their representation to respondents 5 to 7. However, the same was not considered. ii) As per the norms, while constructing a new Temple, a setback of 127 square feet has to be left on the rear and front sides. However, the same is not adhered to. iii) Initially, the petitioners sought a prayer not to allow reconstruction of a new Temple in the subject open space. However, pending the writ petition, the prayer was amended seeking a direction to respondent No.8- Committee not to relocate Sitarama Swamy Temple. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 7. It was contended, inter alia, that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution for the construction of the Temple. As per G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012. The Collector is the competent authority to permit a religious structure. 5. A separate counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.6, contending that Sri Ramulavari Devasthanam was constructed in the year 1958 with the consent and contribution of all the villagers, by following the Agama Shastra and Vasthu Shastra Principles. An Archaka was appointed, and he is performing regular poojas and religious rituals, without any interruption. In the year 2022, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for the shifting of the Temple. Thereafter, the villagers submitted an oral representation to the District Collector, seeking protection of the existing Temple and permission to renovate the same. As per G.O.Ms.No.376, the Government imposed a complete prohibition on the construction of religious structures in government lands. The subject open space is classified as Government land in the revenue records. There is no assignment order, lease deed or alienation proceedings. 6. An affidavit, deposed by one Akkem Mohan Reddy, S/o Peda Ramana Reddy, was filed on behalf of respondent No.8-Committee, vide U.S.R.No.26744 of 2026, dated 02.03.2026. It was contended, inter alia, that there is no idol in the existing Temple. A photo frame of lord Rama is being worshipped. The said photo was not installed by following the Agama Sastras and Vimana Kalpa. The photo will be moved periodically for its maintenance, such as dusting and cleaning. Daily Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam and other day- to-day rituals will not be performed. Respondent No.8 is not touching any stone of the existing Temple and not encroaching on any public road. The dimension of the existing sanctum sanctorum is 20 x 13 feet. Respondent No.8 has undertaken the construction in a separate location and intends to install a new deity in the said premises. A rough sketch was annexed to the affidavit, at page No.5. 7. The petitioner filed objections to the affidavit filed by respondent No.8- Committee. It was contended that the photo frame installed in the existing Temple is covered by „Makara Thoranam‟ by following Agama Sastra and other traditional rituals, and an idol was also installed abutting the photo frame. The photo frame consecrated in 1958 and abutted by an idol and idol worship in the form of an image, is only for the benefit of worshippers. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents reiterated the contentions as per averments in the writ affidavit, additional affidavit, counter- affidavits, and affidavit filed by respondent No.8. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 – committee would further submit that the Committee has made an application seeking permission for the construction of the Temple, and the same is pending. 10. Thus, as seen from the pleadings and the photographs filed by the petitioners, along with the objections, there is no dispute regarding the construction of Sri Ramulavari Devasthanam in Mudigedu Village in the year 1958 and consecration of the deity on 01.05.1958. The photographs filed along with the writ petition make it clear that the photo frame covered by Makara Toranam is abutted by an idol, and it was not disputed either by the petitioner or the unofficial respondents. 11. The main grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.8- Committee is relocating Sri Ramulavari Devasthanam from survey No.259, contrary to the principles of „Agama Sastra‟. However, as seen from the affidavit filed by respondent No.8, noted supra, respondent No.8-Committee is neither touching any stone of the existing Temple nor the photo frame and only intended to construct a new Temple at a different place in the same survey number. 12. A perusal of the rough sketch filed by respondent No.8, along with the affidavit, discloses that in between the existing Temple and the proposed Temple, a Panchayat road exists. The existing Temple is situated towards the East of the Panchayat road, and respondent No.8 is intending to construct a new Temple towards the West of the Panchayat road. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that neither respondent No.8 nor any other villager obtained permission either from the District Collector as required under Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (for short „the Rules‟) for the construction of a new religious structure in the village. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 contends that the Committee made an application; however, the same is pending. Thus, in the absence of any permission, no religious structure can be constructed. 15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Rama Jankijee Deities vs. State of Bihar1, held as under at para No.19: “19. God is omnipotent and omniscient and its presence is felt not by reason of a particular form or image but by reason of the presence of 1 1999 (5) SCC 50 the omnipotent. It is formless, it is shapeless and it is for the benefit of the worshippers that there is manifestation in the images of the supreme being. “The supreme being has no attribute, which consists of pure spirit and which is without a second being i.e. God is the only being existing in reality, there is no other being in real existence excepting Him” …” 16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in M. Siddiq (dead) Through Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case)2, while referring to Rama Jankijee Deities’ case held as under : “102. In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on 15-8-1947 and against the conversion of places of public worship, Parliament determined that independence from Colonial Rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will not be altered. The law addresses itself to the State as much as to every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who govern the affairs of the nation at every level. Those norms implement the Fundamental Duties under Article 51-A and are hence positive mandates to every citizen as well. The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution. The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the 2 2019 SCC Online SC 1440 fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component. The Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values. 184. Among the various issues addressed by the Court, one concerned the existence of a valid temple for the purposes of the Act. The two Judges on the Division Bench differed and the case was then referred to a third Judge. Agreeing that there existed a temple for the purposes of the Act, Viswanatha Sastri, J. held : (T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai case [T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai v. Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, 1949 SCC OnLine Mad 222 : ILR 1950 Mad 799] , SCC OnLine Mad paras 44- 45) “44. … The Hindu law recognises the validity of dedications for the establishment of a deity and the maintenance of its worship. It is immaterial that the image of the deity has not been established before a gift or bequest is made for it. … 45. … The test is not whether the installation of an idol and the mode of its worship conform to any particular school of Agama Sastras. If the public or that section of the public who go for worship consider that there is a divine presence in a particular place and by offering worship at that place, they are likely to be the recipients of the bounty or blessings of God then, you have got the essential features of a temple as defined in Section 9 clause 12 of the Act. The presence of an idol, though an invariable feature of Hindu temples, is not a legal requisite under the definition of a temple in Section 9 clause 12 of the Act.” 17. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.8-Committee is relocating the existing Temple, given the affidavit filed by respondent No.8 is misconceived. In fact, respondent No.8 intends to construct a Temple at a different place, towards the west side of the Panchayat road, of course, after obtaining necessary permission. 18. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.8 not to shift Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, existing in survey no.259, Mudigedu village, Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Respondent No.8 shall not proceed with the construction of a new Temple without obtaining permission from the District Collector, as mandated under Rule 26 of the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 09.03.2026 IKN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24748 of 2022 Date: 09.03.2026 IKN