IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13371 of 2002 Between: Syed Khasim & others. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Kurnool & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri M. Adinarayana Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13371 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to allot alternative site in lieu of plot No.6 allotted to petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is one among the 27 encroachers of the Government land admeasuring Ac.2.36 cents in Sy.Nos.572/A5 and 743/A/3 of Kallur Village forming part of Karnool Town and Municipal Corporation. Out of the said land, land admeasuring Ac.1.72 cents was alienated to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short, “the TTD”), respondent No.4 herein. The balance land of Ac.0.64 cents was directed to be assigned to the encroachers subject to their eligibility. As the encroachers approached this Court by way of Writ Petition Nos.5643 of 1977 and 16726 of 1984, the Revenue authorities have prepared a list of 27 beneficiaries in the year 1994 and allotted the said extent of Ac.0.64 cents among them. Plot No.6 was allotted to petitioner No.1 while no plot was allotted to petitioner No.2. The allottees were required to pay the market value of the plots. Petitioner No.1 instead of paying the market value joined petitioner No.2 in filing the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to allot some other land on the ground that plot No.6 was in occupation of a third party. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that petitioner No.1 instead of paying the market value for plot No.6 has unauthorizedly occupied a part of the land, which forms the entrance of the TTD Kalyanamandapam. As regards petitioner No.2, it is stated that as her name was not found in the list of the 27 beneficiaries prepared and approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool in the year 1994, she is not entitled to allotment of any plot. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.2 died and petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are brought on record as her legal representatives. I have heard Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. From the facts noted above, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos.5643 of 1977 and 16726 of 1984, the list of 27 beneficiaries was prepared in which petitioner No.1 figures while petitioner No.2 does not find a place. Plot No.6 was allotted to petitioner No.1. Instead of paying the market value in respect of the said plot, petitioner No.1 is stated to have occupied another piece of the land, which is required for ingress and egress to the TTD kalyanamandapam. In strict sense, petitioner No.1 has no right to insist on allotment of land. However, having regard to the directions given by this Court, a part of the Government land was earmarked for allotment to the encroachers including petitioner No.1. Therefore, petitioner No.1 would have been satisfied with the gesture shown by the Government in allotting a plot though he was an encroacher. Hence, I do not find any reason to accept the prayer of petitioner No.1 that he be allotted another plot. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1 was evicted from the plot in his occupation and the said piece of land is presently in possession of the TTD. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents may be directed to assign plot No.6 in favour of petitioner No.1. Though plot No.6 was already allotted to petitioner No.1, he has not paid the market value. If the said plot is still available with the Government and the same was not allotted to a third party, respondent No.1 shall consider assignment of the said plot to petitioner No.1 on market value. With regard to the claim of petitioner No.2, it is not denied that she was not a party to either of the earlier two writ petitions or that her name is not included in the list of the 27 beneficiaries. This evidently shows that she was never in possession of any property. Therefore, no relief can be granted to petitioner No.2. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16631 of 2002 filed by the petitioners is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.01.2010 ES