Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
St. Lutheran Church, vs Kakinada Municipal Corporation, on 11 December, 2024
APHC010228282024 Bench
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sr.No:-__
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
WRIT APPEAL NO: 550 of 2024
St. Lutheran Church ...Appellant
Vs.
Kakinada Municipal Corporation and others ...Respondents
**********
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. B. Chandra Shekhar Advocates for Respondents : Mrs. S. Pranathi, Spl. Govt. Pleader CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 11-12-2024 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
The present writ appeal has been preferred against judgment and order, dated 24.01.2024, passed in Writ Petition No.3384 of 2010.
2. The claim of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that the official respondent No.1/Kakinada Municipal Corporation, without giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, had arrived with their men and machinery and bulldozed the compound wall, the front portion of the Church, including the bell tower and the Cross, which led to some further damage to the front portion of the Church building. 2
HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.550 of 2024
3. It was the case of the petitioner that one-fourth of the building was demolished. The demolition, it was urged, was on account of the road widening activity undertaken by the Corporation. It was not denied that the petitioner's Church fell within the said road. The case of the petitioner before the learned single judge also was that while a portion of the Church was demolished, a temple which also similarly fell in the road was not touched, and thus, there was discrimination between the rights and sentiments of different religious groups. In those circumstances, the petitioner had prayed for allotment of open space on the southern side of the Church (behind the Church) to the extent of land acquired due to road widening on the front side of the petitioner's Church and also to pay the cost of reconstruction of damaged portion of the Church along with the damages for the illegal demolition.
4. The reply affidavit filed by the Corporation would suggest that the official respondents had never made an attempt to demolish the Church, but the structure was removed voluntarily by the petitioner to the extent required for road widening as the boundaries of the road had been marked on the Church building with detailed survey and that the Church management had cooperated with the authorities by removing the structures falling in the road.
The reply affidavit also suggests that the Church was constructed on a plot of land which belongs to the Municipal Corporation, which had not yet been regularized.
3
HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.550 of 2024
5. Based upon the aforementioned facts, the learned single Judge, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, dismissed the petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved, which normally would not be entertained in writ proceedings.
6. Reliance, in this regard, was placed upon the Apex Court Judgments in Rourkela Shramik Sangh Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another1, as also Dharam Dutt Vs. Union of India2.
7. This view was expressed by the learned single Judge on the premise that the petitioner had not specifically rebutted in its rejoinder, the assertion made by the respondent Corporation that it was not the Corporation which had undertaken the demolition exercised but the demolition was undertaken by the Church itself.
8. We have gone through the records on the file, the judgment and the order impugned as also heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
9. We cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one which is expressed by learned single Judge as this is indeed a disputed question of fact as to whether the demolition was undertaken by the Municipal Corporation or by the petitioner.
1 (2003) 4 SCC 317 2 (2004) 1 SCC 712 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.550 of 2024
10. We do not find any merit in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 5 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.550 of 2024 224 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.A.No.550 of 2024 Dt: __________ kbs