IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.2810 of 2011 Between: Burla Sai Chandra Prasad Reddy. … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., reptd., by its Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Animal Husbandry. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to shift the Sub Key Village Animal Husbandry Development Centre, Chennarayyunni Palem village (C.R.Palem) (for short “the Centre”) to a building situated in Survey No.891 of C.R.Palem, Bogole Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry. The petitioner’s grand father conveyed a piece of land for the purpose of construction of a building to run the Centre in the above named village by way of a registered gift deed in the year 1968. As the said building has reached a dilapidated stage, the Centre was shifted to Gram Panchayat building in the year 1999. Evidently, at the instance of another resident of the said village, construction of a new building was commenced in the year 2003 with the funds provided by a Member of Parliament. The petitioner alleged that subsequently he came to know that with a malafide intention to see that the Centre is shifted to the said new building, the construction was carried on in a surreptitious manner purportedly for running an Anganwadi office; and that thereupon the petitioner submitted a representation on 18-1-2011 to respondent Nos.2 to 6 not to shift the Centre to the new building ignoring the gift given by the petitioner’s grand father. The grievance of the petitioner is that while none of the respondents have responded to the said representation, hectic efforts have been made to shift the Centre from the existing Gram Panchayat building to the new building. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain a dispute of this nature because the questions such as the effect of gift and the consequences of violation of the terms of the gift need to be adjudicated by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the representation filed by the petitioner is stated to be pending before respondent Nos.2 to 6, it is felt appropriate that respondent No.2 disposes of the said representation. As the petitioner is apprehending immediate shifting of the Centre to the new building, even before disposal of his representation, respondent Nos.2 to 6 are directed to put on hold shifting of the Centre till respondent No.2 disposes of the petitioner’s representation. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ---------------------------------- ------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:11-2-2011 Note: Operative portion by wire at Parties costs. (BO) MNR