IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.14615 of 2001 Between: C. Yadav Krishna .. Petitioner AND The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others .. Respondents ORDER: None appeared for the petitioner like on the earlier occasion. Heard Sri K.L.N. Raghavender Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 4 to 6 and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The claim of the petitioner is about his father Rajaratnam being in possession of door No.4-4-506 and his being provided an alternative house site under a rehabilitation scheme at the time of widening of Alipiri road in T.S. No.558/2 of Bommagunta to an extent of 1570 square feet on 07-03-1995. The petitioner complains of not being granted a house site patta for the alternative house site given to him, in which a thatched hut was raised and electricity service connection was obtained by his father. The Commissioner of Tirupati Municipality was stated to have asked the petitioner to vacate the encroachment on 12-07- 2001, due to which he filed the writ petition for directing the official respondents to grant a house site patta and not to evict him from the land. 3. The executive officer of the 1st respondent in his counter, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, stated that the thatched roof house belonging to Rajaratnam, father of the petitioner, existing on Government poramboke, was stated in the record to have been removed for the purpose of widening the road, due to which he was paid compensation of Rs.5,000/- being the value fixed by the engineering officials. It was also stated that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is concerned only with the widening of the road and not with allotment of alternative house site to the father of the petitioner or the petitioner. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati in his counter- affidavit stated the land to have been classified as Unassessed Waste Dry land belonging to the Government in the revenue records and as the father of the petitioner was an encroacher like others, he was also paid the value of the structure at Rs.5,000/- through a cheque. This petitioner was also stated to be having another permanent structure at door No.4-4-506 in Nehru Nagar, Tirupati in T.S. No.949, which is used for commercial purpose and hence, he was not provided an alternative site. The question of his promise to the petitioner to grant an alternative site does not arise and hence, the official respondents desired that the writ should fail. 5. Even according to the claim of the petitioner, he has no right, title or interest in the site, from which his father was evicted. His claim of being allotted an alternative house site for rehabilitation is not corroborated by any document and even according to him, no house site patta was granted to him in respect of that alternative site, though allegedly promised and the alleged promise is also not evidenced by any document and nothing has been placed before this Court to show that by way of rehabilitation, the petitioner is entitled to allotment of any alternative site. While the 1st respondent is no way concerned with the allotment of house site, even other official respondents cannot be subjected to any direction to grant any alternative site. One more factor which has to be noted is that by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in W.V.M.P. No.3249 of 2001 in W.P.M.P. No.18279 of 2001 on 13-12-2001, it was noted that the petitioner suppressed the fact of filing O.S. No.935 of 2001 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati seeking not to evict him from the premises in question, due to which the interim direction granted in his favour was vacated. While the result of O.S. No.935 of 2001 is not known, the fact of his suppression about the suit in the material placed before the Court in the writ petition, also may disentitle him for grant of any equitable relief in exercise of the extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court. As the material placed on record does not disclose any enforceable legal right against the official respondents for the petitioner to compel them to allot an alternative house site, the writ petition has to fail. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-03-2012 Svv