Parasani Narasa Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Raghunandan Rao, J

The case of the petitioner as made out by the petitioner is as follows: [

Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kosigi is looked after by a Temple Committee. With a view to utilize the property of the said temple, the said temple committee by a resolution dated 15.06.2018 had proposed that persons, who are interested could come forward to construct the shop rooms in the land of the temple and take them on rent. The cost of construction was to be recovered by adjusting 70% of the rent payable towards the cost of construction, until the entire cost of construction is defrayed. The petitioner is said to have paid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the 5th respondent, in the presence of the 6th respondent, and after construction of the shops, the petitioner was allotted shop Nos.2 and 117, which are adjacent to each other on 24.01.2019 and possession was taken on the same day.

It is the case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent had also given an acknowledgment on 24.01.2019 that the 5th respondent had received a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- from the petitioner and that another sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid to the 5th respondent for finishing works on the shop rooms.

It is now the complaint of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was carrying on his business of sale of fruits, flowers and coconuts etc., in the shop room peacefully, the unofficial 7th respondent has been causing disturbance at the shops and is now seeking to work along with the respondents 5 and 6 to evict the petitioner from the said shops.

After notice, the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, the 5th respondent admits that the Devasthanam Trust Board had passed a resolution on 15.06.2018 on the lines suggested by the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not pay any money to either the 5th or 6th respondent and it was one Sri Kosigaiah, who had paid for shop No.117 and the 7th respondent, who had paid for shop No.7.

It is the case of the 5th respondent that these two shops were allotted to the 7th respondent and Sri Kosigaiah, and the question of the 5th or 6th respondent asking the petitioner to handover the shops would not arise. In addition to these averments, the 5th respondent also made certain averments in relation to shop Nos.16 and 17, which are subject matter of W.P.No.17302 of 2019.

The sum and substance of the allegations in the counter affidavit are that the petitioner has no right or claim over the property and no action was being initiated by the 5th or 6th respondent, for evicting the petitioner from these shops as these shops have already been allotted to some other persons.

The allegations and counter averments made out in the writ petition and the counter affidavit makes it clear that these are highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved by way of the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach such authority or court as may be appropriate for a determination of the disputes raised in the present writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.