THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3557 of 2011 Dated 01st November, 2011 Between: Jakkam Sujatha …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K.R.Sashidaran Nair For Sri Palle Nageswara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by order in Roc.No.Rev5/144/AEO (P & R)/TTD/Tml/2010, dated 21.12.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby it has rejected her representation for extending the benefit of rehabilitation for taking away the structure belonging to her mother during her lifetime. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.2 has acquired the private properties at Tirumala in the year 1988 through private negotiations. The mother of the petitioner, Smt.Jakkam Ramasubbamma, was the owner of structures bearing D.Nos.6/76, 6/77 and 6/78 in T.S.No.8-2-E, Surapuram Thota, Tirumala, which were also acquired in the year 1988. It has come on record that during the lifetime of the petitioner’s mother, respondent No.2 has passed resolution No.695, dated 21.09.1993, resolving to provide a house plot at Tirupathi, but the said resolution was not implemented on the ground that house plots were not available at Tirumala and Tirupathi. After the death of the petitioner’s mother, the petitioner started representing to respondent No.2. As she did not get any relief from respondent No.2, she filed W.P.No.18335 of 2010, wherein interim direction is given to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation and take an appropriate decision. In terms of the said direction, the impugned proceedings have been issued by respondent No.2. A perusal of the said proceedings would show that in the opening paragraph, it is clearly admitted that the structures, bearing D.Nos.6/76, 6/77 and 6/78 in T.S.No.8-2-E, Surapuram Thota, Tirumala belonging to Smt.Jakkam Ramasubbamma, the mother of the petitioner, were acquired by respondent No.2 in the year 1988 through private negotiations. However, in the last paragraph of page-2 of the order, it is stated that the petitioner’s mother is not a displaced structure owner, the obvious reason being that she was not physically residing therein and that some tenants of hers who were residing in the said structures were provided with some rehabilitation reliefs. In the opinion of this Court, in the face of the admission that the structures belonging to the mother of the petitioner were taken over, in recognition of which respondent No.2 has passed a resolution as far back as 1993 for providing a house plot, there is no justification for respondent No.2 to deny either the house plot or an equivalent monetary relief to the petitioner. Such a denial not only constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of respondent No.2 but also invasion of the property right of a private citizen. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to re- consider the request of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision to compensate for acquisition of the property bearing D.Nos.6/76, 6/77 and 6/78, which admittedly belonged to the mother of the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4416 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st November, 2011 VGB