IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 479 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 20506 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M.R.Gopal Krishna Reddy, S/o M.V.Nagi Reddy, R/o 163A, North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 2 Smt. M.Sulochana Reddy, W/o M.V.Nagi Reddy, R/o 163A, North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 3 P.Shanker Reddy, S/o P.Raghava Reddy, R/o 163A, North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 4 A.B.Jayaramiah, S/o A.B.Balaramaiah, R/o 163A, North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, T.T.D., Administriative Buildings, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.JAYAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.479 OF 2002 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 17.04.2001 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.20506 of 2000. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. The case of the appellants herein is that they were tenants of Vyasa Raja Mutt in premises bearing No.1/67 in North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District, and that the said premises was acquired by the respondent by way of a notification dated 29.04.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The first respondent Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for brevity, ‘T.T.D.’) had passed a resolution on 05.07.1990 to the effect that alternative accommodation would be provided to the traders who were affected by the acquisition of buildings under their occupation by the T.T.D. Hence, the appellants in the first instance filed Writ Petition No.4960 of 1991 before this Court seeking a direction to the T.T.D. to implement the above resolution and in the meanwhile not to dispossess them from the premises under their occupation. While dismissing the said writ petition on 10.06.1996, this Court inter alia observed that the dismissal order would not come in the way of the T.T.D. in considering the claims of the appellants for providing alternative accommodation in the newly constructed shopping complex in terms of the above resolution. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh suspended the above resolution No.346 dated 05.07.1990 vide G.O.Ms.No.510 and 511 dated 28.06.1996. Notwithstanding the same, the Board of T.T.D. again passed a resolution No.39 dated 29.04.1999 reiterating its earlier policy of providing rehabilitation to the displaced tenants. Basing on the said resolution, request of two other displaced tenants were considered and shops were allotted to them. However, the first respondent passed the order in R.O.C.No.PO1/2080/AEO(P)/ TNL/81 dated 20.10.2000 rejecting the request of the appellants for providing alternative accommodation. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge having gone into the matter in detail held inter alia that the writ petitioners cannot be granted liberty to approach the Government along with claimants to whom show cause notices were issued by the Government proposing to cancel the resolutions of the T.T.D. regarding the allotment of alternative site/shops and that the show cause notices were upheld by this Court in Writ Appeal No.582 of 2000 and batch dated 16.06.2000 and that the petitioners had not derived any benefit under any of the resolution of the T.T.D. and that the case of the petitioners was not similar to that of those claimants to whom the show cause notices were directed to be issued by the Government. Eventually, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, the writ appeal. Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the T.T.D. had provided alternative sites to some of the displaced tenants of Vyasa Raja Mutt and that the case of appellants is similar to that of those persons who were provided with alternative sites. The learned senior counsel therefore contended that a direction be given to the first respondent T.T.D. to consider the case of the appellants and provide alternative sites to them. Per contra, Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned standing counsel for the T.T.D., contended that in view of the pendency of subject matter before the Supreme Court challenging the Judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.582 and batch dated 16.06.2000, the case of the appellants does not deserve any consideration by this Court at this stage. We have perused the material on record. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge inter alia shows that the case of the appellants was not similar to that of those tenants to whom the show causes notices were directed to be issued by the Government. In view of this specific finding recorded by the learned single Judge, we are not agreeable to the request made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that a direction be given to the first respondent T.T.D. to provide alternative sites to the appellants. In the above circumstances, we agree with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned order and we do not find any merit to interfere with the same. However, we are of the opinion that the appellants herein can independently make a representation to the first respondent T.T.D. on their own, but not as tenants of Vyasa Raja Mutt, if they are so advised, for providing site/shops for conducting their business and if any such representation is made by the appellants, the first respondent T.T.D. is directed to consider and dispose of the same expeditiously. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15th June, 2009. VGSR/PGS