Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj A Registered Society vs Govt Of A.P 4 Others

The present writ appeal is arising out of an order, dated 24.06.2009 passed in W.P.No.1721 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred by Sri Shirdi Sai Samaj, a registered society, stating that the appellant/petitioner society and its devotees are being restrained from using 300 square yards of area, which is earmarked for Sri Shirdi Saibaba Statue Temple. The facts of the case establishes that the controversy involved in the present writ appeal stands concluded on account of an order passed on 24.04.2003 in W.P.Nos.5902 and 1354 of 1998. This Court, in the aforesaid cases, has passed the following common order:-

“Therefore, for the above reasons, these two writ petitions are disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) Notwithstanding any order passed by any Civil Court and the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall immediately take action for demolishing and dismantling all structures, which have come up in the open area admeasuring 2897 sq. yards in the lay out approved by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, whatever be the amount spent on such structures, forthwith. The Municipality may take police help if necessary. It is made clear that all the Associations espousing the cause and public interest of the residents are before this Court and no further notice is necessary to anybody;

(ii) The actual area occupied by Shirdi Sai Baba Temple shall be excluded and other structures, be it, temporary or permanent, shall also be dismantled and removed forthwith. The area of about 2,597 sq. yards after excluding 300 sq. yards occupied by the temple shall be developed as a park and compliance report shall be filed in this Court, within a period of three months by the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality;

(iii) It is not denied that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been sanctioned. Further, the learned counsel for Bagyanagar Colony Welfare Association, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, submits that the members of the Association will be depositing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the Municipality within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, and the same is recorded;

(iv) The Municipality shall commence the work of park forthwith without waiting for the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/-; and

(v) As and when the Municipality requests, the Superintendent of Police shall send a contingent of police for removing the illegal structures.”

The aforesaid order makes it very clear that in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents were directed not to touch the 300 square yards of the area occupied by the temple and about 2597 square yards of area was to be developed as park. Meaning thereby, 300 square yards of area was held to be in exclusive possession of the temple and the respondents were directed not to interfere with its possession. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It is pertinent to note that after the judgment was delivered on 24.04.2003, again the present appellant/petitioner society preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.15250 of 2004 alleging interference of its possession by the Municipality and the police and this Court by an order dated 03.11.2004 has passed the following order:-

“So, from the pleadings it is clear that Shirdi Sai Baba Statue Temple is in existence in an extent of 300 sq. yards only at one place and not in two different places as claimed by Shirdi Sai Samaj. As a matter of fact, the Shirdi Sai Samaj filed WAMP 298 of 2004 in W.A.Nos.746, 748 and 848 of 2003 to exclude an extent of 300 sq. yards for the temple to the effect that an extent of 100 sq. yards occupied by Dwarakami Temple and 200 sq. yards occupied by the main temple. The said clarification petition was dismissed holding that the order passed by the court on 11.9.2003 is very clear and unambiguous. That order became final. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merit inasmuch as the petitioner has already availed the remedy and now the petitioner cannot turn round and say that the respondents are interfering with the two temples located at two different areas. The order of the learned single Judge is very clear that the area of 300 sq. yards occupied by the Shirdi Sai Baba Statue Temple shall only be excluded from demolition. The order of this court is very clear that an extent of 300 sq. yards is occupied by Shirdi Sai Baba Temple.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.”

The judgment in the aforesaid case was delivered in 2004 and again in 2009 a writ petition was preferred stating that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) through its Deputy Commissioner was interfering with the possession of the appellant/ petitioner society and it was threatening to demolish the structures. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition stating that the lis involved in the case has already been decided and that the temple is permitted to occupy 300 square yards of area, which has been segregated and the remaining area has to be developed as park.

In the considered opinion of this Court, there cannot be any resolution of dispute again and again as is being prayed by the present appellant/petitioner society. The orders passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation make it very clear that the appellant/petitioner society has been permitted to continue the possession of the temple, which includes the 300 square yards of area and insofar as said 300 square yards of area is concerned, the respondents have been directed not to interfere with the possession of the appellant/petitioner society. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

The respondents shall certainly be free to develop the park as directed in the first round of litigation vide order, dated 24.04.2003 and therefore, insofar as the remaining area is concerned, after excluding the 300 square yards area of temple, the respondents are certainly free to proceed ahead to develop the park, if the same is not developed so far. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.