IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 503 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17.4.2001 in WP NO : 21307 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 N.C.Shanmughan Chetty S/o Srinivasulu Chetty R/o D.No.5/23 (15-3-K), East Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 2 N.C.Chandra S/o Srinivasulu Chetty R/o D.No.5/23 (15-3-K), East Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 3 N.C.Ramesh S/o Srinivasulu Chetty R/o D.No.5/23 (15-3-K), East Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 4 N.C. Hari S/o Srinivasulu Chetty R/o D.No.5/23 (15-3-K), East Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 5 N. Chandraiah Chetty S/o Govinda Chetty R/o D.No.5/23 (15-3-K), East Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the 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.21307 of 2000. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. The case of the appellants herein is that they were tenants of the premises bearing No. 5/23 (15-3-K), East Mada Street, Tirumala, belonging to one M.Padmanabha Iyengar and that the said premises was acquired by the respondent and an Award was passed on 28.2.1991. 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.13974 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 disposing of the said writ petition on 28.10.1991, this Court inter alia observed that the order disposing the writ petition 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 by Memo dated 4.10.1994. 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.PO1/1744/AEO(P)/TML/1985 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 M.S.Ramchandra Rao, learned 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 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 in agreement with the request made by the learned 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 one M.Padmanabha Iyengar, 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar July 6, 2009 MAS.