THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27512 of 2007 Date: 31.01.2008 Between: Sahebzada Mir Hashmath Ali Khan … Petitioner AND The Secretary, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Srinivasa Sarma Counsel for respondent : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27512 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in taking away the property of the petitioner admeasuring 500 sq.yards bearing H.No.18-8-213 situated at Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad without paying compensation, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the above described property having derived title under an alleged gift deed dated 16.6.1975, and that on 10.1.1994 the respondent acquired the said property for construction of a hospital. As his representations did not receive the attention of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20334 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 28.4.2000 with the direction that representation dated 21.10.1998 of the petitioner shall be disposed of by the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In compliance with the direction given by this Court, the Secretary, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad passed order vide proceedings No.B/57/Plg/99, dated 11.9.2001 whereby he rejected the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner of the property in dispute. A perusal of the said order shows that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the property is a Government property and the petitioner failed to produce any documents establishing his title. The petitioner allowed the said order to become final as he failed to question the same. However, suddenly he woke up and made representation dated 11.9.2007 wherein he mentioned that he was bed-ridden for a long time and that he is filing Xerox copies of memorandum of gift deed dated 16.6.1995 and requested the respondent to consider his representation. Later the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts narrated above, it is quite evident that the petitioner has been raking up the disputes intermittently. On his own showing, the land was acquired in the year 1994 and he made a representation in the year 1998. When the said representation was rejected in no uncertain terms on 11.9.2001, the petitioner did not question the said order and instead allowed the same to become final. More than six years later he again sought to rake up the issue on the plea that he was bed ridden for a long period. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to invite my attention to any provision of law under which the respondent is obligated to consider the repeated representations of the petitioner. If the petitioner’s rights were unlawfully denied by the respondent by his order dated 11.9.2001 he should have challenged the said order. Having failed to do so, the petitioner, in my considered view, cannot be allowed to raise the issue time and again over long periods of time. If the petitioner asserts his right over the property, he shall be free to approach an appropriate court of law to get his right declared over the same and then make a claim for compensation in the event of his success in such proceedings. Unless the petitioner establishes his title, no relief as claimed in this writ petition to direct payment of compensation to him by the respondent, can be granted. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35987 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:31.01.2008 mdaa