THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.30398 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in not considering the representation of the petitioner and not executing any registered document like exchange deed in petitioner’s favour for the land in an extent of 267 Sq.yds. in Plot No.3 in Sy.No.38/2 of Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam, which was allotted by the respondent Corporation in exchange of the land taken over for road widening purpose from his father during 1982 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondent Corporation to execute a registered document like exchange deed or any other document for the above said property in petitioner’s favour. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that on 09.10.1974, the erstwhile Town Planning Trust of Visakhapatnam made a proposal for acquisition of land for road widening purpose in various survey numbers of Allipuram Extension Ward and Resapuvanipalem for formation and extension of 75 feet Madhura Nagar Road of various persons including the petitioner’s father’s land in Sy.No.31/P of Resapuvanipalem. Section 4(1) notification was issued and it was approved on 06.12.1978. Ultimately, an extent of Ac.0.23cs of land in Sy.Nos.31/2B, 3B, 8C and 9A was acquired for such road widening totalling 1113.2 sq.yds and paid compensation to his late father with interest vide Award No.14/1985. In addition to the above Ac.0.23cs, another extent of 300 sq.yds in Sy.No.31/8E and 31/9A of Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam belonging to his father was taken over by the respondent Corporation for road widening to connect Sankaramatam Road to National Highway No.5. In lieu of payment of compensation, an extent of 267 sq.yds of land in Plot No.3 of Sy.No.38/2 of Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam was allotted to his father by the respondent vide proceedings, dated 02.04.1983, being preceded by resolution No.179, dated 07.12.1982 and 25.01.1983, whereunder alternative sites were allotted to four persons. This 300 sq.yards of site taken over by the respondent Corporation is not covered by the land of Ac.0.23cs. When the respondent Corporation attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the allotted land in exchange, in the year 1997, he filed W.P.No.247414 of 1997 and the same was disposed of on 18.01.2000 with a direction to the respondent to follow the due process of law if the respondent proposes to cancel the allotment of the alternative l and. Thereupon, respondent Corporation issued a show cause notice on 02.11.2002 calling upon him to show cause for cancellation of the allotment of alternative land for which a reply was given. He also filed O.S.No.766 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of his title and permanent injunction against the respondent Corporation. The relief of declaration of title was denied on the ground that since the allotment of alternative site was not cancelled, the cause of action for declaration of title has not arisen and such cause of action arises after cancellation of the allotment by the Municipal Corporation and that the other children of his father were not parties to the said suit and the Municipal Corporation has not executed any registered document for the alternatiave land allotted to his father, but permanent injunction was granted. But without passing any orders on the show cause notice and disposing his application for building permission, the officials of the respondent started interfering with his possession. So he filed W.P.No.3538 of 2005 and the same was allowed giving liberty to the respondent to initiate action afresh after giving an opportunity to him. But no action has been taken. As the respondent Corporation is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the allotted property in exchange of acquiring his property, he submitted a representation to the respondent Corporation on 23.09.2011 to execute a registered document in his favour but there is no response. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of road widening and in pursuance of the municipal council’s resolution, the Commissioner allotted another land, but exchange deed has not been executed and for that purpose, he made a representation on 23.09.2011 to the respondent, but no action has been taken. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation contended that the respondent would take appropriate decision on the representation, dated 23.09.2011, of the petitioner in accordance with law subject to eligibility. 5. It is not in dispute that 300 Sq.yds of site was acquired by the respondent Corporation from the petitioner’s father for the purpose of road widening. In that process, the Municipal Council passed a resolution to give an alternate site to an extent of 267 sq.yds in Plot No.3 of Sy.No.38/2 of Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam. In pursuance thereof, no document is executed by the Municipal Corporation by way of exchange deed. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by the respondent Corporation in accordance with law on the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, respondent Corporation is directed to take appropriate decision on the representation, dated 23.09.2011, of the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th November, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.30398 OF 2011 Date:17.11.2011 AMD