Dismissed

P.V. Muralidhar Raju, v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Telangana HC1 Jul 2011WP/16774/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge dismissed a writ petition seeking alternate accommodation for the petitioner whose structure was to be demolished, noting that the Respondent had adopted a resolution to scrap such rehabilitation for owners with adequate compensation, barring relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition shall stand dismissed in consequence.

P.V. Muralidhar Raju, Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16774 of 2004

¶3

Date: July 01, 2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

P.V. Muralidhar Raju … Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

1. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupati & 4 others. … Respondents

¶8

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.16774 of 2004

¶11

O R D E R:

¶12

The petitioner assailed the action of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), Tirupati, in seeking to demolish his structures without extending benefits to him as was done in the case of similarly situated persons. He sought a consequential direction to the TTD not to demolish the structures and dispossess him therefrom or in the alternative, to allot alternative accommodation as was done in the case of his family members and others similarly situated.

¶13

2. This Court, by order dated 17.9.2004, granted interim stay of demolition of the structures in question. However, taking note of the fact that the property claimed by the petitioner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and compensation had been paid therefor, the interim order was vacated subsequently under order dated 15.7.2005.

¶14

3. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 11.4.2011, taking note of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in M. Deva Narayana Reddy v. Govt. of A.P.^[1] which held to the effect that the TTD had no authority in law to pass a resolution for allotting sites/structures to persons whose properties were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and to whom adequate compensation had already been paid, the TTD was directed to file an affidavit explaining how it went about allotment of sites/shops/residential quarters to those whose lands/properties had been acquired and to whom compensation had been paid, notwithstanding the above judgment, and if such allotments were made, to explain on what basis the beneficiaries thereof were identified and categorized.

¶15

4. Responding thereto, the Executive Officer, TTD, filed an affidavit dated 03.5.2011 stating that even after passing of the judgment aforestated, the TTD continued to implement G.O.Ms.No.856 dated 05.8.2003 which was issued by the Government on humanitarian grounds. Under the said G.O, the TTD was requested to allot tenements or shops to displaced structure owners on annual licence basis either at Tirupati or at Tirumala making it clear that such allotment would not confer any property rights in favour of the licensees. The Executive Officer of the TTD therefore stated that allotment under the G.O. was in accordance with the rules and was not against the decision of this Court.

¶16

5. This understanding itself is open to question.

¶17

6. Be that as it may, as the Executive Officer stated that the petitioner’s application would be considered by the authorities in accordance with the present procedure and he would be provided alternative shop/accommodation subject to eligibility as per the

¶18

norms, the matter was adjourned to enable the TTD to complete this exercise.

¶19

7. It is now stated that by proceedings dated 28.6.2011 the TTD, having considered the issue in the context of the benefits extended to the petitioner’s family members, rejected the request of the petitioner’s father for allotment of two shops and a house in Tirumala.

¶20

8. Further, a copy of Resolution No.203 dated 26.5.2011 passed by the TTD Specified Authority is produced, which states to the effect that a decision had been taken for scrapping rehabilitation of displaced structure owners/tenants whose lands/properties were taken under the Land Acquisition Act/private negotiations and who were paid adequate compensation. However, the details mentioned therein pertaining to the rehabilitation already effected under G.O.Ms. No.856 dated 05.8.2003 indicate that 1527 house plots were allotted at Tirupati. Allotment of house plots was not contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.856 dated 05.8.2003. Notwithstanding the same, it appears that the TTD merrily continued with the allotment of sites to selected beneficiaries. Trite to state, the same was in flagrant violation of the Division Bench judgment of this Court.

¶21

9. The aforestated facts make it clear that all is not well with the functioning of the TTD. Scant regard was shown to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which specifically held that the TTD had no power to undertake rehabilitation measures by allotment of shops/sites in favour of those who had already been adequately compensated for the loss of their property. Further, in the guise of the so called humanitarian measure embodied in G.O.Ms. No.856 dated 05.8.2003, it appears that the TTD went about with this rehabilitation exercise as and when it suited its

¶22

purpose in favour of those who were to its liking. No explanation is forthcoming as to how the beneficiaries of this G.O. were identified and categorized. Further, the allotment of 1527 house sites, though not sanctioned by the said G.O., appears to have been made at the pure whims and fancies of the TTD. These facts reflect a sorry state of affairs prevailing in the administration of the TTD. It is for the TTD to introspect and adopt a consistent stand and abide thereby at least in future. Now that a resolution has been passed for scrapping rehabilitation measures in favour of those land/structure owners who were adequately compensated for their loss of property, it is for the TTD to implement the same scrupulously and without exception.

¶23

10. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the light of the aforestated resolution and the proceedings dated 28.6.2011, no relief can be granted to him. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, if any, in accordance with law.

¶24

11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶25

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶26

Date: July 01, 2011. BSB

¶27

[1] 2004 (2) ALT 65 (D.B.)

P.V. Muralidhar Raju, v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.V. Muralidhar Raju, v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Marada Lakshmi Vs The District Collector (Cs), Vizianagaram District

Smt.Ch.Kamasamma Vs Smt.G.Komuramma

The Nellore District Co-operative Marketing Society Vs The District Collector

Southern Timbers, rep by Proprietor S.K.Soundara Rajan Vs The Conservator of Forests

K.Hemalata Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

K. Ramalakshumma Vs The District Collector, Kadapa