LAWS(APH)-2001-4-130

GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY M R Vs. T T D

Decided On April 17, 2001
M.R.GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY Appellant
V/S
TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the instant writ petition challenge the proceedings in R.O.C.No. PO1/2080/AEO(P)/TML/81, dt. 20-10-2000 on the file of the first respondent. The petitioners accordingly pray for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners seek consequential directions to provide alternative accommodation before dispossessing them from premises bearing No. 1/67 in North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittoor District.

(2.) It may be necessary to notice relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition: One Vyasa Raja Mutt is admittedly the owner of the structures bearing D.No. 1/67 in North Mada Street, Tirumala, Chittor District (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises')- The same has been acquired by way of a notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 29-4-1987 and published in A.P. Gazette dt. 25-5-1987. The premises along with many other structures and sites were acquired on behalf of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam for a public purpose, namely widening the road and for construction of Kalyana Mandapam and for Cottages for pilgrims. The enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted on 26-8-1987 after getting the notices duly published and served on all the interested persons as is required under the Act. The Manager of Vyasa Raja Mutt, Tirumala sent an objection petition dt. 20-8-1987 requesting to drop the acquisition proceedings. However, no objection has been expressed to allow the area of the land actually required for the purpose of free movement of Vahanam, Ratham etc. The objections so raised were, however, rejected holding that the acquired property is required for a bona fide public purpose. The writ petitioners who claimed to be the tenants of the said Vyasa Raja Mutt never raised any objection whatsoever to the proposed acquisition.

(3.) The draft declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was approved in Government Memo dt. 3-2-1988 and the same was published in the A.P. State Gazette dated 17-3-1988. The draft notification as well as the draft declarations were duly published in the newspapers as is required in law. The substance of the notification and draft declaration was also published in the locality on 18-4-1988.