IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.18166 of 2005 Between: 1 K. Saradha, W/o. K. Muraga, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 T. Kanchana, W/o. T. Mallikarujuna Rao, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 B. Kanyamma, W/o. B. Rasaiah, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4 K. Vasanathamma, W/o. K. Chinnabba Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5 T. Ranemma, W/o. Late K. Changaiah, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 6 C. Jagadhambha, W/o. Late C. Subrahmanyam, Tirupati. 7 Pattamma, W/o. Ramu, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 8 Alimelu, W/o. Changal Rayulu, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati. 3 Vice Chairman, TUDA & Municipal Commissioner I/c Tirupati, 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring of the action of the 3rd Respondent in not allotting the house sites to the petitioner sin Ac. 0-25 cents comprised in Sy.No. 41/1 of Tirupati Town, Which is in the occupation of 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently direct the respondent No. 3 allot house sites to the petitioners forthwith following the letter of the 2nd Respondent addressed to the respondent vide Roc No. 1593/2003 dt.3-3-2004, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.18166 of 2005 ORDER: Heard Smt S.V.Indira, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Eight petitioners herein, in substance, seek a mandamus to the respondents to allot house sites to them of an extent of Ac.0.25 cents each in Sy.No.41/1, Tirupati Town, which they claim is in the occupation of the third respondent/Tirupati Municipality. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit clearly stating that the site in question is a reserved open space earmarked for public purpose in an approved layout in L.P.No.109/63 in T.S.No.41/1 at Tirupati. It is further stated that the original owner, Sri M.Singarachary, obtained the approved layout and disposed of all the house sites in the said layout to the private individuals except the reserved open space for public purpose. The counter affidavit further states that even the original owner of the land has no right in respect of this open space to be used for purposes other than to which it is earmarked in the layout. It is further pleaded by the third respondent that steps have been taken departmentally to remove the encroachments in T.S.No.41/1 and that it cannot be allotted to any person for the purpose of house sites. The third respondent also pleads that in view of the several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court (set out in the counter affidavit), the open space earmarked for public purpose cannot be assigned as house sites to the petitioners. Though the counter affidavit was filed in July, 2007, there is no affidavit in rebuttal filed on behalf of the petitioners. In the circumstances and in the light of the averments in the counter affidavit, there are no merits in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. GODA RAGHURAM,J Dt.22.04.2009 usd