1

W.P (PIL) NO.120 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Ch. Veera chary, s/o. Bhadraiah,

Aged about 49 years,occ : Business and social service,resident of H.NO.12-1-

503/14/A,

Laxminagar,Lalapet,Secunderabad

Adhaar NO.8049 1459 8579 …………………..Petitioner

PAN NO.AFHPC0433P

AND

1) The state of Telangana

Rep by its principal secretary to govt.
Revenue Department,
Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500 022

2) The State of Telangana

Rep by its Principal Secretary to Govt.
Endowments Department,
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 022

3) The Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
Government of Telangana, Boggulakunta,
Hyderabad – 500 001.
 2

4) The Yadagiri Temple Development Authority

(YTDA) having its office at Tourism Plaza 6-3-389, Greenlands,
Begumpet

5) The District Collector,

Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District,
Bhongir – 508 116

6) M/s. Jeeyar Integrated Vedic Academy

(JIVA), Rep. by its Mukhya Preraka and
Sri Sri Sri Tridanda Chinna Srimannarayana
Ramanuja Jeeyar Swamy s/o. H.H. Srimannarayana
Ramanuja Jeeyar Swamy , aged about 63 years,
Occ: Monk
……………………Respondents

1. SUBJECT MATTER:

The petitioner is filing the writ petition in the way of public interest

litigation feeling resentment by the action of the fourth respondent In

executing the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.26105/2019 to an

extent of land admeasuring Ac 2.30 gts in Survey No. 172 situated at

Gundlapally Village, Yadadri District in favour of sixth respondent for a

mere 16,50,000/- against the market value which is in crores.

 3

2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF:

a) The execution of sale deed by the fourth respondent in favour of

the sixth respondent to an extent of Ac 2.30 gts in survey No.172

situated at Gundlapally village, Yadadri District was in question.

The PIL was filed by the petitioner challenging the nature of this

sale.

b) The petitioner challenged the execution of sale deed as arbitrary

and illegal he further said that the land in question is of more value

than the price of the land sold to the respondent six.

c) The petitioner said that the 6th respondent(Jeeyar integrated vedic

academy) is very close to the ruling party and said that 40 feet road

around three sides of the land of the respondent six is also being

laid down by the government.

d) The 6th respondent herein has asked for the alternate land in lieu of

his constructed building (kuteer) of ground plus two floors which

was been obtained by the Yadagirigutta Temple Development

Authority(YTDA) for the development purposes on the top hill of

the Yadagirigutta.

e) The sale deed was executed by the 4 th respondent( YTDA ) in

favour of the 6th respondent ( JIVA ) to compensate 6 th respondent

 4

for the property he lost on the top hill of Yadagirigutta due to the

development works that are being carried by YTDA on the top hill

of Yadagirigutta.

f) The above stated facts were came to known by the petitioner

mostly through the newspaper articles.

3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:

a) Primary issue is whether the execution of the sale deed of land

admeasuring Ac.2.30 guntas in survey No.172 situated at Gundlapally

village, Yadadri district in favour of sixth respondent by the fourth

respondent is valid or not?

b) Whether the allegation made by the petitioner that the 6th respondent

(JIVA) is close to the government is backed up by any strict proof or

not?

c) Can the property in question be alienated by the government to the

private individuals?

d) Legality of the allotment of the other land/site for acquisition of the

kuteer land by the YTDA for the purpose of development on the

tophill of the Yadagirigutta.

e) Whether the collection of the data and reports by the petitioner from

newspaper articles regarding the sale is considered as a valid and

authentic proof or not?

 5

f) The basis of assertion of the land value by the petitioner (no source

has been mentioned by the petitioner on which he is claiming that the

land value is around 12-15 crores)

4. GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PETITIONER FILED THE PETITION:

a) The petitioner came to know about the allotment of the land admeasuring

Ac.2.30 guntas in survey No.172 situated at Gundlapally Village, Yadadri

District in favour of 6th respondent (JIVA) through the newspaper articles.

b) Petitioner gathered registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.26105 of 2019

dated 05.09.2019 and filed the present PIL challenging the registered sale

deed.

c) Petitioner claimed that the government is the trustee and custodian of the

land in the state which is not a private property. The remaining land

belongs to the people of the state and the government is required to

protect and use the same for the benefit of the people.

d) Petitioner claimed that the government cannot give away the land simply

with an impugned sale deed at a mere price of 16,50,000 which has a

value of around 12-15 crores.

e) Petitioner further submits that 12 metres (40 feet road) on three sides of

the road also is being provided to the 6th respondent and the said road is

being laid down by the government itself at the cost of exchequer and in
 6

front of the land there is a proposal to lay 100 feet road and it is in the

heart of the town of Yadagirigutta and its value is more than 12 crores.

f) Petitioner submits that in the impugned sale deed it was mentioned that

the 4th respondent authority (YTDA) has acquired land (extent not

mentioned in the impugned sale deed) but out of the land admeasuring

1
Ac.19-14 2 guntas which is available in survey No.172 of Gundlapally

village of Yadadri District in the Temple city area for the purpose of

setting up of ashramam which land has been acquired by fourth

respondent from the local farmers.

g) Petitioner submits that the fourth respondent could have allotted the

above said land of Ac.2.30 guntas in favour of sixth respondent by way of

lease but instead executed a registered sale deed in favour of 6th

respondent which petitioner called illegal and arbitrary.

h) Petitioner further submits that the respondent number four ( YTDA)

could have compensated respondent number six ( JIVA ) in the form of

cash but not in the form of providing an alternate land.

5.COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4

N. Venkanna Goud s/o Somaiah who is working as an chief accounts officer, in

the office of Yadagirigutta Temple Development Authority, Filed the counter

affidavit.
 7

i. It is asserted that the public interest litigation filed by the petitioner is

misconceived and have been filed for furthering individual interests. It is

said that there is lack of research on the part of the petitioner.

ii. Respondent thrown light on the spiritual nature of the Yadagiri gutta and

respondent said the place radiates spiritual energy. Telangana government

to facilitate the development of the temple, constituted a body known as

Yadagirigutta Temple Development Authority created under the AP Urban

areas (Development Act 1975).

iii. It is submitted that for the development of the top hill in Yadagiri gutta

YTDA has requested the 6th respondent (JIVA) to handover the kuteeram

and its surroundings to the YTDA. Upon this request, the sri jeeyar

integrated vedic academy (JIVA) the 6th respondent herein has requested

the allotment of an alternate land at a nominal and reasonable value for

imparting spiritual knowledge.

iv. YTDA (Yadagirigutta Temple Development Authority) obtained the

structural valuation of the building i.e the cottage constructed by the 6 th

respondent. It was informed by the Executive Engineer R&B Special

Division, Yadadri that the structural value of the building is 46.66 Lakhs.

v. YTDA has also obtained the information from Revenue Divisional

Officer, Bhongiri about the proposed alternative land which was

identified in survey No.172 of Gundlapalli village of Yadagirigutta

 8

Mandal and RDO has informed that the basic value of the land is

Rs.3,00,000/- per acre.

vi. Therefore the respondents submitted that the execution of sale deed in

favour of the 6th respondent ( JIVA ) is for the development and creating

facilities at the Yadagirigutta Temple but not done with any malafied

intention or out of any partiality.

6. MY OBSERVATIONS IN THE CASE BY THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE

CASE:

1. Regarding the assertion of the land value by the petitioner: The

petitioner frequently claimed that the land admeasuring Ac.2.30 guntas in

Survey No.172 situated at Gundlapally Village, Yadadri District has a

market value of more than 12crore but petitioner has nowhere mentioned

his basis of assertion of the land value.

2. Regarding the validity of filing a writ petition solely on the basis of

reports of newspapers: The Supreme Court in S.P.Anand Vs HD Deve

Gowda, made it abundantly clear that in a PIL, to seek court’s

interference in a particular issue, the petitioner is expected to not

succumb to sentiments and behave like a “knight-errant roaming at will in

pursuit of issues providing publicity.” The court held that the petitioner

must keep in mind that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause,

they owe it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to
 9

court without undertaking extensive research. The court went on to say

that it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are

filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons

who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection

of such a petition may affect the rights of persons who are actually

aggrieved.

i. In the past, the apex court has also come down very harshly on petitioners

who file PILs without any research or based solely on news paper reports.

More recently, on August 16, 2022, the apex court while dismissing a

plea challenging the establishment of a Zoo in Jamnagar, Gujarat by the

Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre Society (GZRRC),

deprecated the petitioner for instituting a PIL while noting “the petitioner

himself is not an expert in the field and has based the petition merely on

news-reports which too, do not appear to have been made by the expert.”

ii. The apex court, in Union of India Vs Ranbir Singh Rathuar held that

newspaper reports are not to be considered as evidence in cases where

authenticity of the newspaper reports was not established by the

petitioners. The court went on to say, "Even otherwise, this could not

have been done in a writ petition, as disputed questions of fact were

apparently involved." The court thus hinted at a fact that, if newspaper

reports were cited as evidence, they should examine the reporter who
 10

filed the report and the same cannot be done in writ proceedings as they

do not involve trial.

3) Petitioner cannot adjudge the compensation that needs to be given to the

respondent number six ( JIVA ) as he is not qualified to say what is the

necessary compensation or how should YTDA compensate respondent

number 6 (JIVA).