IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No :3617 of 1999 Dated: 17.04.2007 Between: Rupabati Patro, W/o Gourihara Patro ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Special Grade Deputy Collector (LA) Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and another ..RESPONDENTS ` THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.3617 of 1999 ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in cancelling the allotment of plot which was allotted to her as an alternative accommodation for the land acquired for Visakha Steel Project, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought a direction to the 1st respondent to supply the report of the surveyor and land acquisition proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to produce the same before the Civil Court to prove her case. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of vacant land in block No.39 of Kanithi village, Visakhapatnam District and the same was acquired by the 1st respondent for the purpose of Visakha Steel Project and an award was passed and compensation was also paid to her. It is further stated that in lieu of the land acquired, the authorities have allotted an alternative plot No.1499 admeasuring 107 square yards to the petitioner in Vadlapudi Rehabilitation colony and she occupied the said plot. Subsequently the petitioner constructed a house in plot No.1499 with her own money with the assistance of her brother- 2nd respondent and the same was given to her brother i.e., the 2nd respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs.700/-. Since the 2nd respondent failed to pay rents, the petitioner filed a suit being O.S.No.448 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Visakhapatnam, for eviction from the suit house and for recovery of arrears of rent and the same is pending. The petitioner also filed a suit being O.S.No.1229 of 1993 for the relief of permanent injunction and the said suit is also pending. It is further stated that to prove her title and possession over the suit property, the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 08.09.1998 seeking to issue a certified copy of the proceedings pertaining to the allotment of plot No.1499. Having acknowledged the receipt of the said representation the 1st respondent issued a memo in Rc.No.1064/87-B dated 24.09.1998 informing that the allotment of plot No.1499 in Vadlapudi colony was already cancelled as original allottee was not on ground. As per the memo cancellation was effected vide Lr.Rc.No.1064/87/R-1 dated 09.02.1993. It is further stated that the said letter is noneste in the eye of law since it was not served on the concerned persons. Hence the writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner, the original allottee of plot No.1499, has not constructed the house in the said plot and allowed her brother i.e., 2nd respondent to construct the house in plot No.1499. It is stated that since the original allottee was not in occupation of the plot and her brother who was a third party was in occupation of the same, the allotment was cancelled by the then Special Officer. It is further stated that plot No.1499 was allotted to the petitioner as a displaced person along with the other family members and due to violation of the allotment, the cancellation proceedings were issued on 09.02.1993. The report of the surveyor and the Land Acquisition proceedings, which the petitioner now wants to be given to her, were already submitted in the Civil Court of Visakhapatnam on 08.03.199. While admitting this writ petition, this Court, on 17.03.1998, granted interim order in WPMP No.4513 of 1999 suspending the order in Rc.No.1064/87/R-1 dated 09.02.1993 issued by the 1st respondent, for a period of three weeks and the same was extended till the end of July, 1999 and subsequently it was not extended. Heard both sides. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not occupied the plot allotted to her, the respondent authorities cancelled the entire proceedings. Further it appears with regard to the same subject matter, the petitioner approached the Civil Court and filed suits and that the required report of the surveyor and the land acquisition proceedings were already produced in the Civil Court at Visakhapatnam by the respondent. In the light of pendency of the suits and taking the fact that there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner, and the documents sought by the petitioners were already submitted in the civil court, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 17-04-2007 Gsn.