THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 8813 of 2010 Date: 27.10.2011 Between: K.Madhu Babu … Petitioner And Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Chittor District and 3 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 8813 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam’s (TTD) to allot one shop to the petitioner at Panchajanyam Guest House, Tirumala, Chittoor District on the basis of the “Displacement of Alternative Accommodation Slip” given by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner claims that the properties belonging to his joint family at Ward No.3, Block L of Tirumala were acquired invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that in the negotiations that took place, it was agreed by TTD to allot shops at Tirumala to the members of the petitioner’s family including the tenants of the properties. It is alleged that though shops were allotted to the brothers of the petitioner, his request for allotment of alternative shop was not considered by the TTD. He made representations dated 12.06.2007, 18.11.2008, and 16.04.2010 requesting the 1st respondent to allot him a shop at Tirumala on the basis of the “Displacement of Alternative Petition Slip” issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings PO1/1856/2004 dated 01.08.2004. It is pleaded that without considering his request fort allotment of shop, the 3rd respondent was proceeding to allot a vacant shop available at Panchajanyam guest house to an outsider who is not a displaced person of Tirumala. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of TTD, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the name of the petitioner was not found in any of the lists of the displaced persons and that no shop in the name of the petitioner at T.S.No.6-3-L was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer, on verification, by letter dated 06.11.2008 informed that no particulars were found in the award dated 01.04.2006 or the other record to show that the petitioner was running a provisions shop in the area acquired in T.S.No.6-3-L. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of shop and that his claim was already considered and rejected on 18.01.2008. It is also explained that the 4th respondent herein was one of the un-notified tenants residing at Door No.1-101/C, Marrimanu Mitta, Tirumala. As per Note file Para No.231 of Roc.No.PO.1/1116/89 of the Estate Officer, TTD, the 4th respondent was residing at the said premises, however, his name was not mentioned in the Draft Notification dated 23.02.2000, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the request of the 4th respondent for allotment of a shop was reconsidered. Since he was one of the tenants in the shops, the Estate Officer, TTD had approved the proposal to construct a shop at Panchajanyam Area for the purpose of allotting the same to the 4th respondent as a rehabilitation measure, as per the orders of the Executive Officer, dated 20.03.2010. An additional counter affidavit dated 28.07.2011 has been filed explaining that at the time of acquiring the land at Moola Matham area, an enquiry was conducted and as per the inspection report of Land Acquisition Officer K.Madhu Babu was found to be a resident of D.No.4/7-A which is a Zinc sheet roofed room and D.No.4/18, which is also Zinc sheet roofed single room. For having acquired his residence, the petitioner, was awarded a compensation of Rs.31,640/- towards the value of the structures. Similarly, his father and four brothers were also awarded Rs.31,640/- each. Further, towards rehabilitation the petitioner was allotted tenement No.986 at Balaji Nagar, Tirumala, as per proc.Roc.No.Po1/1856/AEO (P)/Tml/2003 Dated 24.08.2006. That apart since the family members of the petitioner were conducting business at Tirumala, they were allotted shops. The name of the petitioner was not considered for allotment of shops since there was no material to substantiate the plea that the petitioner was conducting any business. The 4th respondent, who got himself impleaded filed a counter affidavit denying the plea of the petitioner that he was a displaced person of Tirumala. It is explained that the 4th respondent was owner of 170 square feet of land upon which a house and shop were constructed in T.S.No.1P, Ward No.3 Block No. B bearing door No.1- 101 situated at Marrimanumitta, Tirumala. The said land was acquired by the Special Deputy Collector, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati for widening of road and other developmental activities. In pursuance thereto Award No.4/2003-04 was passed on 14.04.2003. As there were competing claims for the compensation amount, the matter was referred under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The same was finally decided by the Lok Adalat in L.A.O.P. No.4/2003 dated 11.12.2006. That apart, the government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.856 dated 05.08.2003 decided to provide alternative accommodation in lieu of the lands acquired by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams for the purpose of widening of roads, etc., on Tirumala hills. In accordance with the scheme, the Executive Officer by order dated 20.03.2010 allotted a shop to be constructed in front of the “Panchajanyam” under rehabilitation scheme and the same was communicated by the Estate Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vide Roc.No. No. Rev/188/AEO/(REV)/TML/2010 dated 02.04.2010. I have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, G.O.Ms.No.856 Revenue (Endowments.III) Department dated 05.08.2003 was issued for providing alternative accommodation in lieu of the lands acquired by TTD for the purpose of widening the roads and etc., at Tirumala hills besides paying due compensation. It is true that the properties belonging to the petitioner’s family were acquired. However, alternative accommodation was already provided to the family members in terms of G.O.Ms.No.856 dated 05.08.2003. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the specific case of TTD is that no material is available to establish his entitlement for allotment of a shop in terms of G.O.Ms.No.856 dated 05.08.2003. Though the petitioner relied upon “Displacement and Alternate Accommodation Slip”, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of TTD, it is stated that the name of the petitioner was not found in the lists of the displaced persons. Thus, the very entitlement of the petitioner for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.856 is in dispute. On the other hand, the entitlement of the 4th respondent was established by the award dated 14.04.2003, passed by the Special Deputy Collector, TTD and thereafter on reference to the civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the matter was finally decided by the Lok Adalat in L.A.O.P.No.4/2003 dated 11.12.2006. On being satisfied with regard to the entitlement of the 4th respondent for the allotment under the rehabilitation scheme, TTD had rightly taken a decision to allot a shop in his favour. The petitioner whose entitlement for the benefit under the rehabilitation scheme could not be established cannot have any grievance about the allotment so made to the 4th respondent. Hence, no Mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to allot the shop to the petitioner at Panchajanyam guest house. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to consider the petitioner’s name for allotment of a shop at Tirumala, provided it is established that he is a displaced person of Tirumala. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.10.2011 KLP