Andhra Pradesh Temple Official Faints During Attack By Encroachers
Temple Executive Officer L Rama Devi and her staff were visiting Purushothapatnam village to stop the alleged illegal constructions on the temple-owned land when she was attacked by a group of villagers and subsequently fell unconscious. She was rushed to a private hospital in Bhadrachalam for treatment. An outsourcing employee of the temple also fell ill and required hospitalisation, sources said.
The temple in Telangana's Bhadradri Kothagudem district owns approximately 890 acres in Purushothapatnam, a village that was transferred to Andhra Pradesh following the state's bifurcation in 2014.
Despite an Andhra Pradesh High Court order directing the restoration of this land to the temple, illegal constructions have continued, leading to disputes.
Telangana Endowment Minister Konda Surekha condemned the attack, saying such actions against temple officials will not be tolerated. She warned that the Preventive Detention Act would be invoked against those involved in land encroachment and urged Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to intervene and resolve the long-standing issue concerning the valuable temple lands.
The encroached land, worth crores of rupees, is situated just two kilometers from the Bhadrachalam temple town on the banks of the Godavari River.
The incident highlights the persistent challenges faced by temple authorities in protecting their properties from encroachment, a problem that has plagued Bhadrachalam temple for several decades.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- New Indian Express
Andhra HC quashes 15 ACB FIRs citing lack of police station notification
VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday quashed 15 FIRs registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against government officials on disproportionate assets charges, citing that the cases were filed at an unnotified police station. Justice N Harinath observed that the ACB's Central Investigation Unit (CIU) office in Vijayawada was not notified as a police station through a gazette notification when the FIRs were registered. Therefore, he ruled, the FIRs lacked legal validity. The 15 officials, employed across various departments, had filed separate petitions seeking to quash the FIRs. Their counsels argued that as per Section 2(s) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a gazette notification is mandatory to designate any location as a police station. They also cited Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates that only a Superintendent-level officer can authorise a case related to assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The Advocate General opposed the petitions, stating that FIRs should not be dismissed on technical grounds. He cited a 2003 Government Order recognising the offices of Joint Directors in ACB divisions as police stations. He also referenced Sections 101 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, saying pre-bifurcation laws remain valid. Further, he noted that a 2022 notification designated the ACB CIU in Vijayawada as a police station, which he argued allowed temporary legitimacy to earlier FIRs. After reviewing both sides, the court quashed all FIRs registered between 2016 and 2021.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Court directs police to file criminal case against Konda Surekha in KTR's defamation case
A Nampally court on Saturday directed the police to register a criminal case against Minister for Endowments and Forests Konda Surekha in connection with a defamation complaint filed by BRS working president and former minister MLA K.T. Rama Rao. After reviewing preliminary evidence submitted by the complainant, the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class observed that there is prima facie material to proceed under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and corresponding procedural provisions under the BNS Sections 222 read with 223. The court instructed that a criminal case (CC) be registered and a notice be served to the accused on or before August 21, 2025. The court concurred with the arguments of Mr. KT Rama Rao's counsel, Advocate Siddharth Pogula, who stated that Minister Konda Surekha made baseless and defamatory allegations against Mr. Rama Rao in public all without any factual basis. Responding to objections raised by Ms. Konda Surekha's legal team, the court firmly rejected their contentions that the complaint was speculative or outside jurisdiction. The bench ruled that the court had proper authority to admit the complaint, citing a previous High Court direction. The court also rejected the defence's arguments concerning the admissibility of a pen drive submitted as evidence, stating that the requirement of a Section 65-B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act was premature at this stage, and that it could be addressed during the trial phase.
India Today
6 days ago
- India Today
Top court cancels FIR against actor Mohan Babu over student fee protest rally
The Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated the FIR filed against Telugu actor Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Vardhan Babu in a 2019 case related to organising a rally and allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct. The case pertains to a university rally regarding the release of funds by the government.A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had refused to quash the proceedings, stating that there were no tenable grounds to continue the to the prosecution, in 2019, Mohan Babu—Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions in A. Rangampet Village, Chandragiri Mandal—along with others, gathered staff and students to conduct a rally from the university premises towards Tirupati–Madanapalli Road. The group allegedly raised slogans against the then-ruling government of Andhra Pradesh for not granting students' fee reimbursements to their institutions. The protest, which reportedly took place between 8:30 am and 12:30 pm, allegedly obstructed the free flow of traffic and caused inconvenience and risk to the public, despite the Election Commission of India's Model Code of Conduct and Prohibitory Orders being in petitioners argued that multiple representations were made to the government for the release of reimbursement funds, but no action was taken, leading to the peaceful protest. They contended that the Model Code of Conduct could not be applied to them as they were not contesting in the 2019 Assembly Election nor aiding any political the prosecution claimed that the entire incident was videographed and that there were specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners. It was further alleged that the public and vehicles were restrained for four hours, and that the actions of the petitioners amounted to cognisable offences.- Ends
