DHAMA BOJJAIAH Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the owner of a house in Chandra Babu Thota at Tirumala, which was acquired. The contention of the petitioner is that the persons similarly situated 'as that of the petitioner in respect of acquisition of their properties were given alternative accommodation in one of the existing shopping complexes at Tirumala and also some housing accommodation at Tirupati. This facility is in addition to the compensation for the land acquired. The petitioner has been discriminated in extending the similar benefit is the grievance.

(2.) In the counter affidavit of the Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short the 'TTD') it is admitted that the affected owners of shop/house at Chandrababu Thota were allotted alternative shops/residential accomodation at Tirumala - Tirupathi. The counter states that the petitioner was not residing in the premises acquired at the time of demolition and that the tenants of the premises were allotted residential tenament at Balaji Nagar at Tirumala and Mangalam at Tirupathi respectively. The counter affidavit states that as the petitioner was the absentee owner he is not considered for alternative benefits as per the extended policy. The TTD contends that as per the policy in vogue the absentee owners of the property are not entitled to any alternative accommodation.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.S. Narayana relies upon the proceedings of the Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala to contend that the TTD had formally agreed to consider the allotment of house sites to 15 absent house owners of Chandrababu Thota at Mangalam complex since they have voluntarily and peacefully handed over their properties to the TTD in the interest of development of Tirumala Township and that the petitioner being one of the said 15 absentee house owner he ought to have allotted alternative accommodation.