The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.26496 of 2009 Dated 10th June, 2010 Between: Smt.Kake Shankaramma …Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and 4 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt.K.Aruna Counsel for the respondents: Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in proceeding with the construction of shop Nos.17 and 19 in the Ieeza Bus Stand, Ieeza Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, on the pathway used by the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary. When this Writ Petition was called in the forenoon, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the case was passed over. Even in the afternoon, when the case is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) and perused the record. In her affidavit, the petitioner claimed that her husband late Kake Chinna Venkanna and his brother late Kake Pedda Venkanna have donated land to the Corporation in the year 1980 for the purpose of construction of a bus depot; that at the time of taking over possession of the said land, the Corporation promised the donors that it would construct a bus depot but contrary thereto, it has constructed only a bus stand and that it failed to provide all the facilities to the passengers due to which the passengers are facing inconvenience and hardship. The petitioner further pleaded that the Corporation is proposing to construct 18 shops around the bus stand; that for this purpose, it has already collected huge amounts from private individuals with a promise to let out the constructed shops to them; that out of the proposed 18 shops, shop Nos.17 and 19 are proposed to be constructed over the pathway used by the passengers and that in such an event, there is no alternative pathway left to the passengers to reach in and out gate of the bus stand. The Law Officer of the Corporation filed a counter- affidavit on behalf of the respondents wherein the contention of the petitioner that the land in question was donated by her husband in the year 1980 is denied. It is also stated that the land in question was acquired by the Corporation under an award and possession thereof was taken over from the Tahsildar, Government of A.P., Gadwal, in the year 1978 vide proceedings No.A1/4427/1978, dated 17-11-1978; that the said land was put to use in the year 1987 initially for constructing bus shelter with asbestos sheet roof and that thereafter, bus station was constructed for providing amenities to the general public with three platforms. It is further submitted that as a policy matter in order to provide increased facilities at the bus stations, shops were being constructed under DOT scheme, which are fetching revenue to the Corporation besides providing amenities to the passengers. No reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the above contentions contained in the counter-affidavit. Though the petitioner has pleaded that her husband and his brother have donated the land in question to the Corporation, she failed to produce any material in support thereof. In the absence of such material, coupled with the averments contained in the counter-affidavit that the land was acquired by the Corporation under an award legally and validly passed, the very premise on which this Writ Petition is filed becomes non-existant and incorrect. As the Corporation has evidently acquired the land in question and has become a legal owner, it is entitled to put the said land to use according to its convenience and the petitioner has no locus to question such an action of the Corporation. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.34490 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 10th June, 2010 lur