IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 34919 of 1997 Between: 1 M.Nagireddy, ( DIED). 2 M.R.Gopalakrishna Reddy, ( DIED). 3 M.R.Sulochana Reddy, W/o late M.R.Gopalakrishna Reddy, R/o Tirumal Thirupathi, Chittoor Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Revenue (Endts.III) Dept., Secretariat, Hyd. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, TTD-LA, Tirumala Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 3 The Executive Officer, TTD'S, Tirumala Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 4 The joint Executive Officer, TTD'S Tirumala Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ or order more particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the G.O.Ms.No.837, Rev.(Endts.III) Dept., dt.29.9.97 and Memo.No.56277/Endts.III A.I/96 dt.29.9.97 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to law and also direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Plot No.37 Ananthapalligunta, Tirumala Tirupathi, Chittoor District in accordance with the registered lease deed dt.29.10.94. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO Counsel for the 1st respondent: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4.: SrI M.Adinarayana Raju for TTD The Court made the following : ORDER: The present Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging G.O.M.s.No.837, Rev. (Endts.III) Department, dated 29-09-1997 and the Show Cause Notice in Memo No.56277/Endts.III A.1/96 dated 29-09-1997 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition. 2. The facts of the case reﬂected in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that: The petitioner was the owner of the House Plot admeasuring 1545 sft. situated in T.S.No.7-3-A, North Mada Street, Tirumala having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11.10.1971 from one Sriman Archakam Srinivasa Narayana Deekshitulu. The said land is said to have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner was awarded a compensation of Rs.2,27,882/- along with an alternative plot of 30 ankanams, equivalent to 1080 square feet in plot No.30, Balaji Nagar, Tirumala on lease basis, as reﬂected in the proceedings in Roc.No.PO1/786/AEO (P)/Tml/91 dated 29-09-1992 issued by the Joint Executive Oﬃcer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. While so, it is stated that the petitioner made a representation to the Executive Oﬃcer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition seeking allotment of an alternative plot at Anantapalligunta, citing his advanced age and status as a physically handicapped person. He also agreed to forego compensation granted to him. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 30/31.05.1994 allotting an extent of 1550 square feet in Plot No.37, Anantapalligunta on lease basis. Consequently, the petitioner repaid the amount of compensation received by him, vide Demand Draft dated 26-07-1994. Thereafter, a lease was registered by the 3rd respondent in favour of the Writ Petitioner on 29-10- 1994. The possession of the said land had been given to the petitioner even prior to the execution of the lease deed, on 19-08-1994. While so, a notice was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo dated 29-09-1997 proposing to cancel the allotment of land at Anantapalligunta in favour of the petitioner and calling upon him to submit an explanation. The petitioner is said to have made a representation on 25-10-1997 but without awaiting further orders from the 1st respondent, the present Writ Petition was filed. 3. The 1st Writ Petitioner died during the pendency of the Writ Petition and his son, M.Gopala Krishna Reddy, also died. Accordingly, the widow of Sri M.Gopala Krishna Reddy, by name, Smt. M.R.Sulochana Reddy was impleaded as Petitioner No.3 by the order of this Court dated 15-09-2003 in W.P.M.P.No.14343 of 2003 in W.P.No.34919 of 1997. 4. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams ﬁled a Counter in the above Writ Petition and the petitioner responded to the same by filing a reply affidavit. 5. It may, however, not be necessary to go into the merits of the case in as much as Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly submitted that the Writ Petition was ﬁled against a Show Cause Notice without awaiting the ﬁnal orders of the1st respondent, basing upon the determination of the issue after considering the representation made by the petitioner. He would, therefore, submit that the Writ Petition may be closed permitting the petitioner to raise all the defences available to him in connection with the impugned Show Cause Notice and thereupon, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders. 6. Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams submitted that similar matters were considered by this Court earlier, which culminated in the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.As.1311 and 1339 of 2003 in M.Deva Narayana Reddy and Others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ([1]). He, however, conceded that those cases stood on a diﬀerent footing as the same arose out of the ﬁnal orders passed by the Government and further, the allotment in these cases had been made to persons who had already received the compensation. In the present case, the petitioner returned the compensation awarded to him and in lieu thereof, he was allotted a plot. It is also relevant to note that the Writ Petition is ﬁled against the Show Cause Notice issued by the 1st respondent and not against a ﬁnal order. Therefore, the Judgment of the Division Bench may not have any application to the facts of the present case. 7. The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of directing the petitioner No.3 to go before the 1st respondent and submit her representation, if any, along with supporting material, in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 29-09-1997 and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No.3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders in the matter. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioner No.3 from the subject premises. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Dated 17th September, 2008. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.34919 OF 1997 Dated 17th September, 2008 [1] 2004 (1) ALD 892 (DB)