WA/2635/2005 of P.Venkataramana Raja, Vs The Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Prl.Secretary, on 30 December 2005

HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT APPEAL. NO : 2635 of 2005

Between:P. Venkataramana Raja, S/o. P. Siddama Raju,Hindu, aged about 67 years, D. No. 4/6, Moola Mattam Thota, Tirumala,Chittoor District...... APPELLANTANDThe Government of A.P., represented by its PrincipalSecretary, Revenue (Endt. III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others......RESPONDENTS::JUDGMENT::Counsel for the Appellant :MR. J. Ugra NarasimhaCounsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Assignmentsth30December, 2005

Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ

This appeal is directed against order dated 16-9-2005 passed by the learned SingleJudge in W.V.M.P.No.1651 of 2005 (in W.P.No.10390 of 2005) vide which hevacated the ad-interim order dated 29-4-2005 passed in W.P.M.P.No.13433 of 2005.

A perusal of the record shows that in the main writ petition filed by him, the appellanthas challenged the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 for acquisition of the land including Door No.4/6, Singamala Street (OldPapavinasanam Road), Tirumala. The appellant has averred that in terms of thepolicy framed by the Government, he is entitled to alternative site as a conditionprecedent to his dispossession and the mere fact that his son has already beenallotted a plot cannot justify rejection of his claim. He has averred that the allotmentmade in favour of his son has nothing to do with his entitlement to be allottedalternative site.

While issuing notice of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed thefollowing interim order in WPMP No.13433 of 2005.

“Notice.

Post after vacation. Pending further orders, status quo obtaining as ontoday as to the nature and possession of the land in question shall bemaintained.”

After receipt of notice, the respondents filed an application for vacating the interimorder on the premise that as a result of stay granted by the Court, the proceedingsinitiated for acquisition of the land for a public purpose has been stultified.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record, thelearned Single Judge vacated the ad-interim order by observing that the alternativeprayer made by the writ petitioner for allotment of shop can be considered at the timeof final disposal of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that allotment of shop to the appellant’sson in terms of the policy framed by the Government is not sufficient to deprive himof his legitimate right to seek allotment of his shop. He emphasized that much beforethe initiation of acquisition proceedings, there was a family partition and his son had separated from the family and, therefore, allotment of shop to him under theGovernment policy cannot be made a ground to deprive the appellant of hislegitimate right to seek allotment of shop.

Learned Government Pleader argued that the so-called partition between theappellant and his son cannot be recognized for the simple reason that the appellantwas merely a lessee of the property. He further submitted that on the face ofallotment of one shop to the appellant’s son, the latter cannot seek a direction forallotment of another shop in the guise of partition and in any case, the proceedingsof acquisition cannot be halted simply because the appellant has made a prayer forallotment of shop.

Analysis

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. In our opinion, theorder of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any patent legal infirmity,which may justify the interference by the appellate Bench. Admittedly, theappellant’s son has been allotted a shop in accordance with the policy of theGovernment in lieu of acquisition of the disputed land which was leased out to theappellant. Whether or not the appellant is entitled to allotment of shop will have to bedecided at the time of final adjudication of the writ petition. This issue may or maynot be decided in favour of the appellant. Therefore, at this stage, there can be nojustification to stay the acquisition proceedings or continue the stay order earlierpassed by the learned Single Judge.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is madeclear that the dismissal of this appeal shall not prejudice appellant’s cause in themain writ petition.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

Pnb / svs