IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21763 of 2007 Between: V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Govindaiah, 6-100/1, Nehrunagar, Jeedimatla, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The TTD Devastanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Chief Engineer, TTD, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Executive Engineer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Liberty, Hyderabad. 4 The Executive Officer, Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Mattapally Mandal, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ order or orders, directions particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 26-9-2007 of the 4th respondent as well as the proceedings Roc.No. D4/4998/CE/2002, dated 12-9-2007 of the 1st respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice, in the interest of justice and pass any such other order or orders or directions as this HOn'ble High Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.PHARINATHA GUPTHA(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21763 OF 2007 ORDER: The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam leased the Kalyana Mandapam, situated at Mettapalli in Nalgonda district, in favour of a Dyanamandali on conditions stipulated in an agreement of lease. Thereafter, on receipt of several complaints from local representatives that the Dyanamandali was not permitting use of Kalyana Mandapam for performance of marriages etc., the lease was not extended on its expiry. It is the case of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam that the Dhyana Mandali, on expiry of the lease, had handed over physical possession and that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, as an interim agreement had entrusted the management of the Kalyana Mandapam to the 4th respondent-temple. The petitioner admits that the Kalyana Mandapam in question belongs to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. It is their case that the Dhayanamandali had put them in possession and that they are running a hostel for students up to 10th Class thereat. The manner in which they were put in possession by the Dyanamandali is not stated in the affidavit nor is a copy of any agreement entered into between the Dyanamandali and the petitioner placed before this Court. Sri M.V.Raja Ram, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that, even if the petitioner is held to be a trespasser, he, or the organization he represents, cannot be evicted by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam except in accordance with law. The lease with the Dyanamandali expired on 12.9.2007. The petitioner could not have been in possession prior thereto. Since the property in question, admittedly, belongs to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, the lease with the Dyanamandali has expired, and as there is no on material on record to show the manner in which the petitioners herein were put in possession of the Kalyana Mandapam which was constructed by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam for performance of marriages and other functions, I see no reason to exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of persons who have evidently, barged into other’s property, and now claim protection from Courts. It is well settled that the jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that interference is not for the mere asking. It is only if larger public interest demands, or a manifest injustice is occasioned, would interference by this Court under Article 226 be justified. Petitioners who have barged in, and have forcibly occupied the Kalyana Mandapam cannot now be heard to contend that, even if they are held to be trespassers they should be permitted to continue at least till the end of April, 2008. I see no reason to entertain writ petitions of this nature. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _____________ 25-11-2008 GS