B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 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.

( 4 ) IN the meanwhile the representative of vyasa Raja Mutt, Tirumala filed Writ petition No. 8551 of 1988 in this Court. Petitioners also filed Writ Petition No. 9896 of 1988 and obtained interim order from this Court. The writ petitions so filed by the petitioners as well as the Mutt were dismissed. The Writ Appeal No. 1373 of 1989 and 185 of 1990 filed by the Mutt and the petitions were also dismissed by this court on 16-3-1990.

( 5 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer passed award dt. 15-2-1990 awarding compensation to Vyasa Raja Mutt represented by its Peetadhipathi. In the award itself it is stated that there is no other person appeared as an interested person or occupier in respect of the said premises. The petitioners never challenged the award, nor claimed any compensation in respect of the said premises. The award has become final.

( 6 ) THE Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam passed resolution No. 346 dt. 5-7-1990 resolving to provide alternative accommodation to traders who were affected by the acquisition of buildings under their occupation by the devasthanam. The petitioners filed W. P. No. 4960 of 1991 in this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus for directing the devasthanam to implement the resolution no. 346 dated 5-7-1990 and not to dispossess the petitioners from the premises, which are in the occupation of the petitioners. This Court by an order dt. 10-9-1996 dismissed the said writ petition. This Court in categorical terms held that "the resolution passed by the board of Management of TTD is only an enabling provision to consider the claims of the petitioners in the similarly