ORDER

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of respondents in not considering the representation dated 17.07.2018 in terms of Board Resolution No.181 dated 03.06.1991 for allotment of shops in lieu of acquisition of his residential house in 12/24, T.K.Street, Tirumala even after an elapse of 27 years as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction contrary to its own resolution besides violation of Article 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 17.07.2018 for allotment of shops in lieu of acquisition of his residential property situated in 12/24, T.K.Street, Tirumala as per Board Resolution No.181 dated 03.06.1991 forthwith and pass such other order or orders ....”.

2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner owned property in Door No. 12/24, T.K.Street, Tirumala. Petitioner running a fancy store and was eking out his livelihood. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 intended to acquire the property of the petitioner along with others for development of Tirumala Hills. Accordingly, notification under Land Acquisition Act was issued and the same was lapsed. Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP. Respondents, at that point of time, promised to allot house site and shop besides payment of compensation. Petitioner surrendered house and shop to the respondents by way of private negotiations. Respondents paid the compensation. Tirumala Tiruapati Devasthanam (for short ‘TTD’) Board passed a resolution vide resolution No.181 on 03.06.1991. Petitioner made representations on 07.10.2004, 25.06.2007 and 12.04.2008. Petitioner also made a representation on 19.02.2016 and finally on 17.07.2018.

Complaining inaction, the above writ petition was filed.

3. Respondent No.2 filed the counter affidavit. It was contended, inter-alia, that adequate compensation was paid to the petitioner. In addition to the payment of compensation, a tenement in Balaji Nagar No.583, Tirumala was allotted on humanitarian consideration as a measure of rehabilitation. Specified authority of TTD had taken a decision in its resolution No.203 dated 26.05.2011, scrapping rehabilitation to displaced persons, owners/tenants whose lands/properties were taken under the Land Acquisition Act by private negotiations and who were paid adequate compensation and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri A.V.Kondaiah, learned counsel representing Sri C.Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TTD appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that by passing resolution No. 181 dated 3-6-1991, the Trust Board promised to allot shop in shopping complex. However, no shop was allotted. Various representations made did not evoke proper response. Hence, prayed to direct the respondents to allot shop.

Learned standing counsel, per contra, would contend that by passing another resolution 203 dated 26-5-2011 scrapping rehabilitation scheme and eventually prayed the court dismiss the writ petition.

6. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the respondents are not considering the representations made by the petitioner in terms of resolution No.181 dated 03.06.1991. A perusal of the resolution No.181 approved by the TTD Board, the Board resolved to allot a shop in shopping complex.

7. The point for consideration is:

Whether, TTD Board under Powers & Functions of TTD Board Rules 1990, got power or authority to allot sites or shops?

8. Division Bench judgment of High Court in M.Deva Narayana Reddy vs. Govt. of A.P1 held that TTD has no authority in law to pass resolution for allotting sites/structures to persons whose properties were acquired under the provisions o