THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24738 of 2007 Date: 07.02.2008 Between: Gabbita Bhanu Prasad … Petitioner AND Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Rep., by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Jyothi Prasanna for Sri K. sarvabhouma Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt. G. Jhansi SC for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Counsel for respondent No.2: Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24738 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s request to allot an alternative site in lieu of 90 square yards of site situated in NTS No.4, Revenue Ward-1, Block-1 of Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, as illegal and discriminatory. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasanna representing Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that an extent of 90 square yards of land situated in the survey number as mentioned above was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 04.08.1994 for valuable consideration of Rs.4,500/- from one Bharathavarapu Edu Kondala Rao, he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Kambhampati Kalyani, on 27.08.1994 to sell, obtain necessary permissions for construction etc, that in November, 1994 when there was an attempt to lay a road by respondent No.1 Corporation through the said site without following due process of law, he filed Writ Petition No.21585 of 1994 and that the same was dismissed on 29.09.1999. The petitioner further averred that while dismissing the writ petition he was given an opportunity to pursue alternative remedies, that when respondent No.1 Corporation sought to lay a road through plot Nos.31 and 32, which are adjacent, Smt.K.Damayanthi and he filed writ petitions and on the instructions of the Corporation, they got the writ petitions dismissed with liberty to pursue alternative remedies and that the Corporation had made an endorsement on 05.08.1995 that they will be allotted alternative sites after the withdrawal of the writ petitions and that however the said endorsement was not communicated to the petitioner as was done in the case of Smt. K. Damayanthi. It is further averred that the said Damayanthi was allotted an alternative land by G.O.Rt.No.83, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (N1) Department, dated 29.01.2002 and on coming to know about this fact in the year 2005, the petitioner made a representation on 19.02.2005 to the Government. The petitioner stated that by endorsement dated 19.09.2006, his request has been rejected and questioning the same, he filed the present writ petition. A perusal of the record shows that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on his representation that in the light of the stand taken by the Corporation that his site is located in an authorized layout and that the said property originally formed part of Krishna Cooperative Building society Limited, which had shown the said site as a part of road, and that he purchased the said property for residential use, contrary to the purpose for which the same was shown in the layout, he sought for permission of the Court to give liberty to him to approach the competent civil Court to avail appropriate remedies. Having regard to the said request of the petitioner, this Court dismissed Writ Petition No.21585 of 1994. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the order in the said writ petition hereinbelow. “According to the petitioner the respondents are intending to lay a road through the petitioner’s site without his consent and permission and/or without acquiring the same in accordance with law. The Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit stating that this property which originally was the property of the Krishna Cooperative Building Society Limited was shown in the layout as a road and that the purchase by the petitioner of the property is thus contrary to the purpose for which the property is shown in the layout. in the circumstances, contends that the action of the respondents in proposing to lay a road would not be invalid. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that whether the property in question is shown in the layout as a road or not is a disputed question of fact and as such contentious issues constitute the contention and jurisdictional facts on which alone adjudication can be done, he would prefer to pursue the more appropriate efficacious and alternative remedy of instituting the suit in the appropriate jurisdictional Civil Court. On this plea the counsel for the petitioner seeks that the cause in this writ petition need not be adjudicate. In view of the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue such alternative remedies as are available to him in accordance with the provisions of law. No costs.” The facts noticed above clearly show that there is a severe dispute about the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation or seeking alternative land in lieu of compensation. The petitioner was unsuccessful in his previous attempt. The only ground on which the present writ petition is based is that in case of Smt. Damayanthi, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 29.01.2002 whereas, under the impugned endorsement the petitioner’s request was rejected by respondent No.1 Corporation on the ground that he purchased the site forming part of a road portion of an unauthorized layout as evident from the registered document No. 1785 dated 19.05.1991 and that he has not filed any authentic document to show that he and Smt. Damayanthi stand on equal footing. At the hearing, though the learned counsel sought to invite my attention to a purported internal office note of respondent No.1 Corporation, in the absence of any authentication of the same, I am not prepared to refer to and rely upon its contents. At any rate, the petitioner failed to show any statutory provision under which he is entitled to claim an alternative site in lieu of his site being utilized for forming a road. In my considered opinion, mere allotment of alternative site in favour of another person would not give rise to a new cause of action for the petitioner to file the present writ petition, bypassing the remedy of civil suit, which is available to him. The law is well settled that no citizen can claim negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (See Union of India and Another v. International Trading Co. and Another[1]) If the petitioner asserts his right as the lawful owner of the property and if he is legally entitled to the compensation for the site being utilized for respondent No.1 Corporation, the only remedy, in my opinion, for him is to approach civil Court as he volunteered before this Court in Writ Petition No.21585 of 1994. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.32219 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.02.2008 ES [1] (2003) 5 SCC 437