THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6034 of 2010 April 08, 2010 Between: B.Krishna, S/o.Late Mallaiah … Petitioner And The District Collector, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6034 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in demolishing his house bearing No.1-3-92/3, Unnikota, Kavadiguda (hereafter, premises) as illegal and arbitrary and for further order restraining the respondent not take possession of the house. The petitioner alleges that the premises was originally owned by Balakrishna Reddy. It is his case that owner gifted the premises to petitioner’s father and family of petitioner is in possession of the property. They obtained electricity connection for five portions and also two water connections. On 14.3.2010 respondents allegedly demolished petitioner’s premises. Petitioner further states that in about 300 Sq.yards, there are fifteen families and respondents demolished the houses. At the stage of admission, third respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that petitioner’s premises bearing No.1-3-92/3 forms part of Unnikota slum and falls in T.S.No.5/9, 6/1, 6/2 and 6/4, Block-M, Ward 75 (correlated to survey Nos.193, 196, 197, 228 and 232 of Bakaram Village, admeasuring 6823.34 Sq.Mts. The same is covered by 566 pucca houses. By notification dated 11.9.2009, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad declared the area as a slum under Section 3(2) of Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956. The same was challenged by 10 persons. When G.Venkata Reddy and others filed petitions before Special Deputy Collector, the matter was negotiated. The owners were allotted 9466 Sq.yards in survey No.21 of Gopanapally village in Ranga Reddy District as alternate land, by G.O.Ms.No.272, dated 24.2.2009. As many as 26 persons claiming ownership, executed relinquishment deed and housing scheme is taken up under JNNURM programme. While denying other allegations made by petitioner, it is stated that all the occupants of the area were removed after obtaining their consent and they were also given possession certificates allotting houses to be constructed under JNNURM housing programme. Petitioner and some others refused to take pattas/possession certificates. It is also stated that M/s.Tarakarama Unnikota Weaker Section Welfare Association gave representation expressing their willingness to vacate slum area if they are provided alternative accommodation. In the mean while the work of issuing possession certificates and demolishing existing houses has taken up on 13.3.2010 and 14.3.2010 with the coordination of GHMC, Revenue, Police, Electricity Departments under the supervision of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad, and about 500 families vacated the area. As the owners of Unnikota slum area relinquished their right, petitioner has no right to claim relief. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). The residents of slum, before it was declared as such, accepted letters of possession certificates in respect of houses to be constructed under JNNURM programme. The counsel for petitioner however submits that in the premises owned by petitioner in addition to him there are other tenants and issuing only one alternate accommodation to the owner is arbitrary. The submission is misconceived. Petitioner has not placed any material to show that the tenants in the houses are also residing in Unnikota slum area before the same was declared as such. Even otherwise, it is brought out in the counter affidavit that M/s.Tarakarama Unnikota Weaker Section Welfare Association has already made such request, which appears to be under consideration. If only those few persons are not allotted houses in the housing scheme under JNNURM programme, they can approach the Revenue authorities and make representations. Merely because the issue of allotting houses to those occupants in slum areas like tenants, is at large, petitioners cannot be permitted to cause hurdles to developmental work, which is intended to help the poor. When this is pointed out, the counsel for petitioner is agreed that his client would accept possession certificate and alternate accommodation may be granted to him under JNNURM housing programme. Petitioner is given liberty to do so. Even according to petitioner, his house is demolished and, therefore, any Mandamus as prayed for would be detrimental. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 08, 2010 YS