AP high court declines to interfere in PIL on Akiveedu Ram temple construction

Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh high court on Wednesday declined to interfere in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed challenging the construction of Ram temple at Akiveedu in West Godavari district. Observing that there is no need for parallel proceedings as the issue is already pending before a single-judge bench, and notices have been issued, the high court granted liberty to the petitioner to implead in the writ petition before the single judge and raise all the grounds prayed for in the PIL.One U Jayanti, resident of Pedapeta village where the disputed temple construction is proposed, moved the high court contending that the land where the temple is being raised is govt land. Arguing on her behalf, Jada Sravan Kumar told the court that the Supreme Court has categorically directed that no govt land should be used for any religious constructions.Responding on behalf of the temple committee, senior counsel Y V Ravi Prasad said the revenue records clearly show the said land as temple land. He said clear records have been available since the 1930s, and everywhere it was recorded as temple land. He objected to the filing of a PIL when a writ petition is already pending before the single-judge bench.Ravi Prasad further stated that the petitioner is a close relative of those who filed the earlier petition and is trying to initiate parallel proceedings on the same issue. He further submitted that all permissions have been obtained from the competent authorities for the reconstruction of an already existing temple. Sravan Kumar raised objection, saying that in the name of reconstruction of the temple, they are demolishing the Gonthenamma temple, which is dedicated to a village goddess.Considering the arguments on both sides, the HC bench headed by Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya disposed of the petition with an observation that there is no need to initiate parallel proceedings on the same issue, which is pending before the single-judge bench. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to implead in the petition and allowed her to raise all the grounds raised in the PIL if required.