IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27330 of 2007 Between: P. Ramji Rao S/o Pedda Anna Rao R/o Room No. 312, 11N.C. Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams rep by its Executive Officer, Tiruapthi, Chittoor District. 2 The Estate Officer, TTD Tirumala, Chittoor District. 3 The Asst. Executive Officer (Revenue)TTD Tirumala, Chittoor District. .....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 of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in canceling the accommodation tenement No. 108 Balaji Nagar, Tirumala allotted to the petitioner under Displaced persons category and the shop No.1 in Asthana Mandapam Tirumala as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to restore the possession of Tenament No. 108 at balaji Nagar Tirumala and shops No. 1 in Asthanamandapam to the petitionr and pass such other or further order or orders as deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was a tenant in a shop bearing No.12/44, T.K. Street, Tirumala. The site, on which, the shop was existing, was acquired by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short ‘the Devasthanam). The petitioner was provided temporary accommodation in Tenement No.108, Balaji Nagar, Tirumala by the Devasthanam, pending allotment of a shop in the complex. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have issued proceedings, dated 12.07.2007, cancelling the allotment of Tenement No.108 in Balaji Nagar and are also trying to evict him from Shop No.1 of Asthanamandapam Complex, Tirumala. This writ petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents. The Executive Oﬃcer of the Devasthanam ﬁled a detailed counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated that the petitioner was provided temporary residential accommodation in Tenement No.108 pending allotment, and Shop No.1 in Asthanamandapam Complex was allotted in the year 1987 itself. It is mentioned that the allotment of the shop is also under cancellation, since it was said to have been subleased to one Sri B.C.Lakshmi Reddy. Heard Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devasthanam. The petitioner was only a tenant in a shop constructed over a land, which was acquired by the Devasthanam. Pending allotment of the shop, as a measure of compensation to the petitioner, he was permitted to put his household articles in Tenement No.108 in the year 1984. More than two decades have elapsed and the petitioner became almost a permanent resident in the Tenement. It is not as if the petitioner was not provided alternative shop. In the year 1987 itself, he was allotted Shop No.1 in Asthanamandapam Complex. Though it is urged that the possession of the shop was not delivered, this Court is not inclined to take the same into account. The petitioner has to work out his remedies separately as regards allotment and occupation of Shop No.1. It is not in dispute that the permission accorded to the petitioner to remain in Tenement No.108 was only temporary in nature, pending allotment of the shop. May be on account of indiﬀerence on the part of some of the authorities of the Devasthanam, the petitioner continued in possession of the Tenement for more than two decades. At a belated stage, the Devasthanam had initiated action and this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in it. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and it is left open to the Devasthanam to resume possession of Tenement No.108, Balaji Nagar, Tirumala, forthwith. It is, however, directed that the right of the petitioner for allotment or continuance of possession of Shop No.1 in Asthanamandapam Complex shall be decided on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.09.2008. kdl