APHC010847152016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 8947/2016 Between: 1. N.KANAMMA (DIED), W/O N.RAMAIH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D.NO.634,BALAJI NAGAR, TIRUMALA, TIRUPATHI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. S.DEVI, W/O.S.AYYAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O 634, BALAJI NAGAR, TIRUMALA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.-517504 PETITIONER 2 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.R. TO THE DECEASED SOLE PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.24.07.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.1 OF 2023. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS, REPTD. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, BHAVANI NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T.T.D. ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, BHAVANI NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): SRS,J W.P.No.8947 of 2016 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue, a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the Proceedings ROC .No .P01(a)/23557/AEO(PO/TML/1976, dated 03.06.2013 rejecting the petitioners case for allotment of the shop at Tirumala under rehabilitation scheme as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violation of Art.14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to allot the shot at Tirumala under rehabilitation scheme and pass such other order in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 11339 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to considering the petitioners representation dated 02.02.2016 for allotment of the shop at Tirumala pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to brought on record myself as Legal Representative of my deceased mother-in-law as petitioner in the above Writ Petition No.8947 of 2016 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to restore the WP no. 8947 of 2016 by setting aside the order dated 27-11-2023 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the order in WP no. 8947 of 2016 dt. 27-11-2023 and pass SRS,J W.P.No.8947 of 2016 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD) 3. . The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Sumon, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 2. The deceased petitioner No.1 filed the above writ petition impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide ROC No.PO1 (a)/23557/AEO (P)/TML/1976 dated 03.06.2013, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Pending the writ petition, petitioner No.1 died, and her legal representative (daughter) came on record as petitioner No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner No.1, a permanent resident of Tirumala, has been running a shop, allotted at South Mada Street, at Temple Town Tirumala. While so, respondent No.2, Devasthanam, acquired the petitioner‟s shop along with other shops, for the construction of Vykumtum Q Complex-I, agreeing to allot the shops at Tirumala under the rehabilitation scheme. The Joint Executive Officer of the Temple, by proceedings R.O.III/84, dated 09.09.1985, granted a Hawker license and the name of petitioner No.1 is mentioned in column No.VI under the caption of Persons Evicted From „Q‟ Complex shop. SRS,J W.P.No.8947 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that respondent No.2 allotted a residential house at 3rd Satram and petitioner No.1 used to reside therein. Petitioner No.1 made representations for allotment of a shop at Tirumala under the rehabilitation scheme. However, they were not considered. Therefore, petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.22929 of 2015. Learned counsel would submit that in the said writ petition, respondents filed a counter-affidavit by annexing the proceedings dated 03.06.2013 (Ex.P11), impugned in this writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.01.2016, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings Ex.P11. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 made another representation dated 02.02.2016 (Ex.P10) and the same was not considered. Hence, the writ petition. 6. Learned standing counsel would submit that the rehabilitation scheme was scrapped by resolution No.203 dated 26.05.2011. He would also submit that Division Bench in M. Deva Narayana Reddy and others v. Government of A.P. and others1 considered an identical issue and confirmed the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.19149 and 20009 of 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Learned standing counsel also placed reliance on order dated July 01, 2011, passed in W.P.No.16774 of 2004, wherein the learned Single Judge of the composite High Court dealt with an identical issue and dismissed the writ petition. 7. Thus, as seen from the pleadings, the grievance of petitioner No.1 is that her request to allot a shop at Tirumala, under rehabilitation measures, was rejected by the proceedings ROC No.PO1 (a)/23557/AEO (P)/TML/1976 dated 03.06.2013. The contention of the learned counsel that the rejection order suffers from illegality, in the considered opinion of this court, is misconceived. The TTD Board is passing resolutions from time to time regarding administration, and one such resolution is 230, dated 26.05.2011. 1 2004 1 ALD 892 SRS,J W.P.No.8947 of 2016 8. A perusal of resolution No.203 dated 26.05.2011, produced by learned standing counsel, indicates that the rehabilitation scheme was scrapped by the Board. The Division Bench of the composite High Court in M. Deva Narayana Reddy’s case (referred supra), while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, observed as under at para 69 and 70: “69. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the resolutions in question making available the alternative land to the appellants and granting lease in their favour are contrary to the said Rules and therefore, it is not open to the appellants to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel. 70. Neither the provisions of the Act nor the rules framed thereunder do confer any power or authority on the Board to pass resolution allotting sites to those persons whose lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and adequate compensation was already paid.” 9. Learned Single Judge of composite High Court in order dated 01.07.2011 passed in W.P.No.16774 of 2004 (between P.V. Muralidhar Raju and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Rep. by its Executive Officer, observed as under at paras 8 and 9: “8. Further, a copy of Resolution No.202 dated 26.05.2011 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 05.08.2003 indicate that 1527 house plots were allotted at Tirupati, Allotment of house plots was not contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.856 dated 05.08.2003. Notwithstanding the same, it appears that the TTD merrily continued with the allotment of sites to SRS,J W.P.No.8947 of 2016 selected beneficiaries. Trite to state, the same was in flagrant violation of the Division Bench judgment of this Court. 9. The aforementioned 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 05.08.2003, it appears that the TTD went about with this rehabilitation exercise as and when it suited its 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 TTD to implement the same scrupulously and without exception.” 10. Thus, as seen from the resolution passed by TTD and the pronouncements of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the composite High Court, the rehabilitation scheme is not in force and in fact, it was struck off. 11. Apart from that, in paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, it was specifically stated that petitioner No.1 was allotted a house bearing No.634 and was given a hawkers‟ license in the year 1985. However, the same was not renewed by her from 1986 onwards. Rejection proceedings suffer neither from illegality nor arbitrariness. Page 7 of 8 SRS,J W.P.No.8947 of 2016 12. Thus, given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 11.07.2025 IKN SRS,J W.P.No.8947 of 2016 101 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 8947 of 2016 Date: 11.07.2025 IKN