Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27462 (AP)

AZMEERA KOTI NAIK v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/35604/2025 · 2026-02-04

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010692112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35604/2025 Between: 1. AZMEERA KOTI NAIK, S/O RAMULU NAIK, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O D.NO. 5-170, TADIKONDA, THULLUR MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN-52223. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, . GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR, A.P.. 3. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR, A.P.. 4. THE ANANTHAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, ANANTHAVARAM VILLAGE, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. 5. CHITTIPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKAIAH, AGE 54 YEARS, RIO D.NO.5-105, ANANTHAVARAM VILLAGE, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. 6. NALGONDA SIVA SANKAR, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGE 47 YEARS, R/O D.NO.5-1444, S.T. COLONY, NEAR VENKATESWARA SWAMY, ARCH, ANANTHAVARAM VILLAGE, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR 2 DISTRICT. ...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 to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly respondent No.4 in trying to demolishing the Jagadambha Temple situated in Survey No.39/1 of Ananthavaram Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District vide Demolition Notice dated 12.11.2025, which was issued basing on the Order of this Honble Court in WP.No.27658 of 2025 dated 09.10.2025 without considering the explanation submitted by the, petitioners and without even verifying the revenue records as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to law, contrary to rules, amounts to non-application of mind, colourable exercise of power and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the daily rituals/ Poojas performed by the petitioner to their Deity i.e. Jagadamba Temple 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 to suspend the impugned Notice 12.11.2025 issued by the 4th respondent for demolition of "Jagadamba Temple" situated in Survey No.39/1 of Ananthavaram Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y KAMALA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: 3 :: ORDER :: Heard Ms. Y.Kamala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appeared for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel, appeared for the 4th respondent and Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel, appeared for the respondents 5 and 6. 2. Impugning the notice dated 12.11.2025 (Ex.P1), issued by the 4th respondent, the above writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and others are the residents of Ananthavaram Village, objected to the illegal occupation by the respondents 5 and 6 in Sy.No.39/2. The Sy.No.39 was subdivided into 39/1 and 39/2. The petitioners are residing at Sy.No.39/1, and the temple is also located in the same survey number. The 4th respondent issued notice dated 12.11.2025 (Ex.P1), under the guise of the order dated 09.10.2025 in W.P.No.27658 of 2025. The petitioners submitted an explanation dated 25.11.2025 (Ex.P8). However, without considering the explanation, the 4th respondent is taking steps to remove the temple. 4. Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent, would submit that the 4th respondent will conduct an inquiry by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondents 5 and 6 and thereafter pass a reasoned order. 4 5. Learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would contend that the petitioners converted a waiting shelter into a religious structure and hence, the respondents 5 and 6 filed W.P.No.27658 of 2025, which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 09.10.2025. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued the notice dated 12.11.2025 (Ex.P1). 6. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, earlier, the respondents 5 and 6 filed W.P.No.27658 of 2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 09.10.2025. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “In view of the categorical submissions made by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent is hereby directed to take appropriate action by following due process of law and keep the common general shelter as it is, for the purpose for which it was constructed, in accordance with law.” 7. Thereafter, notice dated 12.11.2025 (Ex.P1) was issued by the 4th respondent, and the petitioners submitted an explanation dated 25.11.2025 (Ex.P8). Since the petitioners submitted the explanation, the 4th respondent shall conduct an inquiry by providing an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners as well as respondents 5 and 6 and thereafter, pass a reasoned order strictly as per the Law. Till such a reasoned order is passed, the 4th respondent shall not take any coercive steps, in pursuance of the notice dated 12.11.2025 (Ex.P1). The 4th respondent shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 05.02.2026 SNI 6 153 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35604 OF 2025 Date: 05.02.2026 SNI