HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4273 of 2004 Date : 06.08.2009 Between : Mrs. Dr.Tadikonda Martha Hilda. …..Petitioner And The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad & 3 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4273 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in not paying compensation to her in respect of the land admeasuring 968 square yards, acquired by the 2nd respondent-Municipal Corporation for the purpose of laying the road, besides assigning of a portion of the land covered by Plot No.141 in Survey No.28 in Ward No.4 of Rajahmundry, in favour of one N.Sudarshan, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It appears, during the year 1969, a locality called ‘Kambalapet area’ under Rajahmundry Municipality, was reconstituted for the purpose of providing house sites to the landless poor persons by preparing a layout. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, Late Sri Bathina Paradesi, was the owner and possessor of residential house site to the extent of 2101 square yards in Survey No.28. After his demise, the same was divided by the petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Sri Bathina Paradesi, by a registered partition deed, bearing document No.1834/1970, dated 25.05.1970. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the Municipal areas were re-constituted for clearance of slum areas and for providing house sites to the landless poor persons, the land of the petitioner was included in the layout and it was carved-out as plot Nos.138 to 144. it is submitted that an Arbitrator appointed for implementation of the above scheme, under a mistaken impression, did not allot Plot No.141 to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that a further area of 756 square yards belonging to her, was used for laying of a road, and, as such, she is entitled to be compensated for a total extent of 960 square yards, which she was deprived of. 4. Counter affidavits are filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavits, it is stated that in the year 1969, the Kambalapet area under Rajahmundry Municipality was re- constituted and all the affected parties were compensated by allotting equal extent of land or through payment of compensation. It is stated that the petitioner has been compensated against the affected property in T.S.No.948/1 in the re-constituted scheme. The petitioner is allotted plots in the same layout after following due procedure, and the petitioner has also received the said plots in the form of pattas, admeasuring 1230 square yards, way-back on 29.07.1971. The plot numbers, which are assigned to the petitioner are, Plot No.138 (194 sq.yards), 139 (199 sq.yards), 140 (176 sq.yards), 142 (218 sq.yards), 143 (232 sq.yards) and 144 (211 sq.yards). It is submitted that the Arbitrator has allotted those plots to the petitioner, which were accepted by her in the year 1971. Though the petitioner is not entitled to claim any further compensation, the present claim is made after the lapse of 33 years. It is further submitted that apart from the landed compensation, the petitioner was also compensated monetarily, for an extent of 754 square yards of land at the rate of Rs.2/- per square yard, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any further compensation. 5. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the area used by the petitioner is came to be unauthorisedly occupied by the Municipality, without paying any compensation to her, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clearly stated that the Arbitrator, who was appointed for implementation of the re-constituted scheme of Kambalapet area in Rajahmundry Municipality, has given some plotted area to the petitioner by way of compensation as early as on 29.07.1971. Even with regard to the remaining area also, the petitioner was compensated to the extent of 754 square yards at the rate of Rs.2/- per square yard. Said averments made in the counter affidavit are not denied by way of filing any reply affidavit by the petitioner. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner was compensated with residential plots, apart from monetary compensation as early as in 1971. Keeping quiet for about 33 years, without even giving the particulars of arbitratory proceedings, under which, six plots were allotted to her, this writ petition is filed by making vague allegations. In view of the abnormal delay of about 33 years and unexplained laches on the part of the petitioner, and further, as she was compensated to full extent in 1971 itself, she is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th August 2009 ajr