Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A. Krishnaiah And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Repd. By ... on 27 March, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(3)ALT226
JUDGMENT Jagannadha Rao, J.
1. These two writ petitions relate to acquisition of land for purposes of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (hereinafter called 'the TTD) on the Tirumala Hills immediately adjacent to the main temple and close to the queue complex which has been built by the T.T.D. investing several crores of rupees. The land and buildings sought to be acquired are in South Mada Street, Tirumala. In W.P.No. 2631/1986, the petitioners claim a writ of mandamus, declaring the notification issued under Section4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') dated 25-5-1985 issued in G.O.Ms.No. 605, Revenue (Endts.III) Department (Published in the Newspaper dated 23-6-1985) to be invalid. They also seek a declaration that the subsequent declaration made by the Government under Section 6 of the Act (Published in the Newspaper dated 27-2-1986) is also illegal. The buildings which are concerned, bear Door No. 10/42 to 10/52 in Ward No. 3 Block-H, in T.SNo. 14/ 2 of Tirumala Hills. In W.P.No. 1712/86,the sole petitioner is also questioning the same notification and declaration in respect of the land and building covered by T.S.No. 8/1, Ward No. 3, Block-H measuring an extent of 0.01.91.00 h.a. at Tirumala Hills.
2. At the outset, we may state that in M. Padmanabha Iyengar v. Government of A.P., a Division Bench of this court consisting of Jeevan Reddy, J. (as he then was) and Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri, J., upheld several other notifications relating to the land acquisition on the Tirumala Hills and in respect of lands and buildings acquired on the North Mada Street, East Mada Street, South Mada Street and West Mada Street on the Tirumala Hills. That Judgment contains the entire history of the title to various properties on the Tirumala Hills and various acquisitions made on the Hills from time to time for the purpose of implementing the Master Plan for the integrated development of the Tirumala. We shall have occasion to refer to the points decided in the said judgment during our ensuring discussion.
3. The notification in question issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is in G.O.Ms.No. 605, Revenue (Endts.HI) Department, dated 25-5-1985. It is stated that the lands are needed for "public and pilgrims" purpose, to wit, for implementing the master plan b) T.T.Devasthanams". Under the same notification, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with the exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act. Initially, a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on the same day. Subsequently, the petitioners filed WP.No. 6471/85 which was allowed at the stage of admission or 27-6-85 to the extent of quashing the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act and directing enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, admittedly the claimants have filed their objections on 23-7-1985 enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted on 29-8-85 and a further declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 17-10-1985 was published in the newspaper on 27-2-1986. The declaration under Section 6 has mentioned the purpose of acquisition as follows:-
".............for implementing the master plan and for piligrims visiting Tirupathi....."
The petitioners in W.P.No. 2631/86 filed the writ petition on 11-3-1986, and the sole petitioner in W.P.No. 1712/86 filed the said writ petition on 18-2-1986. We shall refer to the facts mentioned in writ petition No. 2631/86. The facts in WP.No. 1712/86 are similar.
4. The Master Plan for development of Tirumala was issued on 2-6-1975. In 1976 the other land in South Mada Street was acquired for purposes of queue complex which has since been built at an expense of several crores of rupees. The T.T.D. wanted to widen the South Mada Street and appears to have called the residents in that street for discussion on 5-1-1977. The District Revenue Officer, Chittoor inspected Tirumala on 15-5-1977 and he is said to have submitted a report on 17-5-1977 stating that there was vehicular traffic requiring widening of the road and that alternative land has to be provided for the land-owners etc. Thereafter, the Executive Officer of the T.T.D. issued a letter dated 23-5-1977 to the petitioners seeking their willingness to part with the buildings and land to the extent of 11 feet in the front for widening the road and 34 feet in the backside for the purposes of alignment of the queue complex. When the petitioners refused to enter into negotiations, a notification was earlier issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 3-8-1977 by the Government proposing to acquire the petitioner's buildings for purposes of implementing the Master Plan for construction of the queue complex. The petitioners submitted representations against the acquisition on 29-1-1977 and 8-9-1977. As the said notification lapsed, a fresh notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act and a declaration Under Section 6 were issued on 7-5-1980 proposing to acquire the petitioner's buildings and land, and the purpose mentioned was "implementation of Master Plan and for the queue complex". The petitioners filed WP. 512/81 and obtained stay of the land acquisition proceedings on 4-2-1981. On 11-3-1981 the Trust Board of the T.T. Devasthanams passed a resolution accepting the scheme prepared by the Executive Officer of the T.T.D. in consultation with the Land-owners. On that basis, the Executive Officer passed orders on 14-3-1981 stating that, (1) the land for widening the roads and for queue complex is to be given after demolishing the existing buildings; (2) Plans are to be submitted by the owners for reconstruction of their buildings in the remaining area and (3) the height of the new buildings should not exceed the Prakaram (outer wall of the temple), and the Executive Officer would withdraw all the land acquisition cases while the land-owners have to withdraw all pending cases in the courts. Thereafter, it was stated in para - 8 of the said order that it has been "generally assured" that in future T.T.D. would not resort to wholesale acquisition of all properties situate in this section of the South Mada Street as was originally planned. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners demolished their building on 15-3-1981 and handed over 11 feet on the front side and 34 feet on the backside for purpose of the T.T.D. They then applied on 10-4-1981 for permission to reconstruct the buildings in the remaining area and such permission was granted for construction of two-storeyed building on 4-7-1981. Thereafter, when the building was constructed, writ petition No. 512/81 was withdrawn on 7-4-1983.
5. It was at such a juncture that the present notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 25-5-1985 in G.O.Ms.No. 605, Revenue (Endts. III) Department, "for implementing the Master Plan and for pilgrims purposes" as stated above. The enquiry Under Section 5-A was dispensed with initially, and a declaration Under Section 6 was simultaneously issued on 25-5-1985, but the latter was struck down by this Court on 27-6-1985 in W.P.No. 6471/85. Objections Under Section 5-A were filed on 27-7-1985 and enquiry was held on 20-8-1985 and then a declaration Under Section 6 was issued on 17-10-1985 and published on 27-2-1986.
6. In the writ petitions W.P.No. 2631/86 and W.P.No. 1712/86, the writ petitioners raised the following contentions: Firstly, the purpose sought to be achieved by. the present notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act was already served by the previous acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 7-5-1980 and that, therefore, the present notification is a colourable exercise of power, Secondly, it is stated that the T.T.D. is estopped from initiating fresh land acquisition proposals after the "assurance" given by the T.T.D. as per the orders of the Executive Officer dated 14-3-1981. The third contentions is that there is non-application of mind in the 5-A enquiry and there was no opportunity given to the petitioners by calling for the documents mentioned in the petitioner's application filed before the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. A Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Special Deputy Collector stating that subsequent to the last acquisition, there are proposals to widen the South Mada Street to 60 feet in view of the growing needs of the pilgrims. Several persons gave their willingness for such further acquisition for purposes of widening the road while the petitioners did not give any such consent. The T.T.D. also wanted to provide other amenities in this area such as construction of Open Air Theater etc., near the queue complex as was envisaged in the plan. The previous acquisition has no bearing on the present case inasmuch as that was confined to the then immediate needs. The present . acquisition is being made on the requisition of the Executive Officer of the T.T.D. dated 15-2-1985. Consequent to quashing of declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in W.P.No. 6471/85, an enquiry under Section 5-A has been held after bearing objections and then the declaration under Section 6 has been issued. The petitioners were represented by an advocate and they no doubt filed a memo to cause production of certain documents from the T.T.D. for perusal. The I.A.O. passed the award on a consideration of all the material. The application for production 6f records it is stated was filed only to gain time and to delay the proceedings. In fact, the petitioners were given 15 days' time to adduce evidence but they failed to take advantage of the said adjournment. The Land Acquisition Officer is not concerned to call for the records as they are not relevant to the issue. For the purpose of development of Tirumala, there is a background paper prepared by the Director of Town planning in the Year 1975 and the land acquisition proceedings are based upon the plan prepared by the said officer. The hands covered by the impugned notification are necessary as the queue complex has to be fully developed as envisaged in the plan by constructing an open Air Theatre etc., by providing amenities to pilgrims such as Harikatha, music recitals etc. A stage is needed near the queue complex for various performances, Harikatha etc. to keep the standing piligrims engaged and also others. There is a plan proposed for designing the queue complex on modern lines providing all facilities and amenities with adequate accommodation for pilgrims so as to extricate them from monotonous standing in the lengthy queues and particularly on special occasions like & "Brahmostsavams& ". Petitioners' Lands are very close to the queue complex and the area on either side of the petitioners' land has already been acquired by private negotiations. The narrow strip of land and building thereon will cause obstruction to the audience as also the pilgrims. Except the lands of the petitioners in this writ petition and the other writ petition (W.P. 1712/86), all other buildings have been removed by way of negotiations. There is no proposal to set-up commercial shops in the locality. Any assurance given in the earlier acquisition proceedings is not binding on the Government. It is stated that there are no merits in the writ petition.
8. A reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners stating that the allegation that the building was posing an ugly appearance and also obstructing clear view of "Ananda Nilayam' (the Gopuram of the main temple) to the pilgrims waiting in the Quene Complex is not correct. The petitioners' building is a double-storeyed building and a modern construction, constructed after obtaining permission from the T.T.D. pursuant to the proceedings of the Executive Officer, dated 14-3-1981. Condition No. 13 of the said proceedings no doubt lays down that the height of the building including parapet wall should not exceed the height of the Prakaram wall at South Mada Street. This condition was no doubt imposed for the purpose of providing a clear view of Ananda Nilayam to the pilgrims that are seated in the queue complex. It is stated that the petitioners' building does not obstruct the view of the piligrims in the queue complex or elese where to have a clear view of the 'Gopuram' in as much as it is below the height of the Prakaram. The queue complex consists of a basement, ground floor and a first floor. The pilgrims in the basement will not have any view of the temple or Ananda Nilayam. But the pilgrims in the ground floor and first floor will be able to see Gopuram or Sikharam. The aditorium proposed to be built was part of the originally proposed queue complex and it is not an after-thought. The purpose of acquisition in 1977 and the present acquisition is the same. Petitioners' have filed a suit O.S.No. 196/85 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupati against the T.T.D. for permanent injunction and that during its pendency Section 6 declaration has been issued. It is stated that Gubba Muniratnam Chetty Charities, Tirumala, were provided alternative accommodation by way of an exchange deed dated 6-6-1983. They were given alternative land behind the Mysore Choultry. There is a large block of land at that place and the petitioners are prepared to take that land in exchange for the land proposed to be acquired.
9. The first question that has to be decided is whether the notification dated 25-5-1985 issued Under Section 4(1) of the Act in G.O.Ms.No. 605, Revenue (Endts.III) Department is for a valid public purpose of whether it is the result of a colourable exercise of power.
10. As pointed out in M. Padmanabha Iyengar v. Government of A.P. (1 Supra) Tirumala is one of the important pilgrim centres in the country. Lord Venkateswara attracts thousands of pilgrims every day from all over the country and lakhs of people on festival days. The temple is located on Tirumala Hills. There are four Mada Streets on the four sides. The temple proper abuts there South Moda Street. On festival occasions the deity of Sri Venkateswara is taken in procession in the four Mada Streets, thousands and some times lakhs of people congregate to have a glimpse of deity. In 1974, on account of congestion, there was an unfortunate accident in which three persons were crushed under the wheels of temple-chariot. On the Tirumala Hills, it is claimed by the T.T.D. that the entire property is the property given in Inam to the temple by the British and that there have been quite a lot of encroachment by persons who are claiming the property by way of adverse possession. Without going into the validity of the title set up by such persons, the T.T.D. has been periodically issuing proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Master plan or other development. The Director of Town Planning was entrusted with the question of development and he prepared a Master Plan. Chapter XIV of the said Plan sets out the 'strategy for development of Tirumala'. In so far as the four Mada Streets are concerned, paragraph 2 (a) of the said chapter has recommended that the private shops in the locality should be shifted to some other area near the bus-stand and the same should be developed as a commercial complex. It is also suggested to extend the complex up to Sannidhi Street. The scheme deals with important facilities like canteens, restaurants, milk boohs, KalyanaKattas, banking facilities etc. Para 3 deals with water supply drainage sewerage while para 4 deals with medical and health facilities, communications, Fire service, Security arrangements, Religious Institutions and Reception Centres. Para 5 deals with traffic and transportation including the widening of the Mada Street and provide other facilities. Para 6 deals with housing accommodation while para 7 deals with Landscaping and Conservation. After preparation of the Master Plan, the T.T.D. has been trying to acquire the properties abutting the Mada Street either by private negotiations or by land acquisition for the purpose of achieving integrity, coordinated and harmonious development. Excellent Town-Planning Architects and Engineers all over the country attended a seminar in July, 1975 and offered their valuable suggestions, on the development plan prepared by the Director of Town Planning. They suggested that the T.T.D. should take over the area occupied by private owners, that the area bounded by the Mada Streets should be cleared of and the same developed as a semi-open space for use of the pilgrims. The dilapidated structures on either side of the Mada Streets should be dismantled and structures so suitable architectural value be built for providing commercial establishments, hall for religious discourses and for other ancillary use connected with the temple etc. It is also stated that on account of the lie of the land of Tirumala Hills, the sewerage water and other polluted water is flowing towards the temple that the water in the 'Pushkarini' (Bathing Tank) has become highly contaminated and is posing a danger, to health.
11. It is in this back-ground of implementation of the Master Plan that more than SO notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were published in 1986 to acquire several properties on both sides of the four Mada Streets. The said notifications were questioned in the batch of writ petitions and were all dismissed by the learned single Judge and were also dismissed by the Division Bench in the case reported in M. Padmanabha Iyengar v. Government of A.P. (1 Supra)
12.The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench also deals with the submissions therein made that the implementation of Master Plan stated in the notification is a vague expression. It was contended that particular purpose must have been specified for each piece of land. The said contention was rejected by the learned Judges stating that the correctness of the Master Plan is not questioned before them and that the Plan shows that the Major portion of the property on both sides of the four Mada streets is in fact owned by the T.T.D. and only certain plots or patches as they may be called, are owned by private individuals or institutions and that with a view to gain the control over the entire site abutting the four Mada Streets and to develop the said area in an orderly integrated and planned manner, the acquisition was being made. The bench observed:
"It is true, the Master Plan speaks generally of developing the entire Tirumala Hills area; the Master Plan does not indentify a particular piece of land for constructing a particular building or structure. It does, however, expressly and repeatedly say that private properties on both sides of Mada Streets must be acquired with a view to widen the to preserve the sanctity of the temple and its surroundings, and in the interest of a planned development of the area, in particular in the interest of pilgrim-traffic, their health, hygiene, and convenience.... The purpose stated in the impugned notifications viz., implementation of Master Plan, or construction of Kalyan Mantapam, or Choultries, as the case may be is undoubtedly a public purpose. It is not denied by the petitioners that a large volume of pilgrim-traffic visits Tirumala Town every day, and visits the temple. It is not also disputed that on certain days the traffic runs into tens of thousands. All this pilgrim-traffic has to be housed, fed and provided reasonable opportunity of visiting the temple and performing their cere monies and rites.... It is also not disputed that Mada Streets are very narrow.... and that they required to be widened in the interest of safety of pilgrims".
13. The learned Judges then observed that it was not obligatory that the plan must first be prepared specifying the proposed constructions and other structures before any acquisition is made. The learned Judges then referred to several rulings of the Supreme Court wherein it was accepted that acquisition generally precedes development. (Aflatoon v. Ltd. Governor., Delhi, , Lila Ram v. Union of India, . They also mentioned that in some of the impugned notifications, implementation of Master Plan was not one of the objects mentioned though it was mentioned in some others. They observed that that made no difference and that all the notifications had to be viewed in the context of the Master Plan. They observed.:
"So far as the widening of roads is concerned there can be no controversy at all....
The idea it must be reiterated is to acquire all the land abutting four Mada Streets and then to develop it in an orderly manner. That all the appellants knew of this over-all purpose is evident from their objections filed in Section 5-A enquiry and their averments in these writ petitions". They stated that these are components of proposed development plan or the Master Plan as it is generally referred to. For the aforesaid reasons the Division Bench held that the acquisition was for a public purpose.
14. It is with this back-ground of the 50 other notifications under Section 4(1) which have been affirmed in the aforesaid judgment, that we have to consider the impugned notification in the present case. The notification states that the properties are needed for public and pilgrims purpose, to wit, for implementing the Master Plan of the T.T.D). The declaration under Section 6 says that the land and buildings are needed for public purpose, to wit, for implementing Master Plan and for pilgrims visiting Tirupathi. In the earlier order passed by the Executive Officer on 4-6-1981, it was clearly stated that the petitioners should not construct the building which was permitted to be constructed on the unacquired portion in such a manner as to obstruct the view of the Vimanam or Gopuram or Sikharam as it is called. This is clear from para 13 of the said order which reads as follows:-.
"The height of the building including parapet wall should not exceed the height of the Prakaram wall of South Mada Street, Tirumala".
The writ petitioners have also understood the said clause in the said manner as is clear from para 2 of their reply affidavit wherein they accepted as follows:
"This contention was imposed only for the purpose of providing a clear view of Ananda Nilayam to pilgrims that are seated in the queue complex or elsewhere of the clear view of Ananda Nilayam as it is below the height of the Prakaram. I submit that the queue complex building consists of basements... ground and first floor... I state that the pilgrims that are accommodated in the basement will not have any view of the temple or Ananda Nilayam. The Pilgrims seated in the ground floor will be able to see the Sikharam of Ananda Nilayam and they will not have the full view of it as the Prakaram of the temple will obstruct it. The pilgrims that are accommodated in the first floor will have a clear view of Ananda Nilayam as the height of the first floor is above the height of the Prakaram. Even if our building is not there the above situations remains".
As stated earlier, pursuant to the acquisition of 1981 in respect of part of the petitioners properties as well as of others, the queue complex has been built to accommodate thousands of pilgrims. The queue complex has been constructed by spending crores of rupees. It consists of compartments in which the pilgrims are provided with seats to sit comfortably. Each compartment has separate canteen facilities and also separate toilet. One of the objects of the proposed acquisition is to see that the building of the petitioners does not obstruct the view of the thousands of pilgrims who sit in the queue complex. This is clear from a reading of the notification coupled with Clause 13 of the earlier orders of the Executive Officer dated 14-3-1981. It is also clear from the correspondence in the file preceding the issue of the impugned notification.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners' building which has been constructed in the unacquired portion of his property pursuant to permission granted by the T.T.D. on 4-6-81, does hot obstruct the view of the pilgrims from the queue complex. As there was considerable controversy raised on the question of fact, the T.T.D. filed an additional affidavit together with large number of photographs before us. The photographs were described and Exs. A-1 to A-12 in W.P.No. 2631/1986. Ex-A.1 taken from the ground floor of the queue complex from extreme right side corner shows that the view of Ananda Nilayam (Gopuram) is obstructed by the petitioners, from property. Ex.A-2 taken ground floor right side of the queue complex shows that there is similar obstruction. Ex.A-3 taken from ground floor extreme right side of the queue complex from corridor of the first compartment again shows obstruction. Ex. A-4 taken from the ground floor of the queue complex from the middle main entrance corridor shows how the property eclipses a clear view of the Gopuram. Ex.A-5 taken from the first floor middle of the queue complex also shows how the petitioners property obstructs the clear view of the temple from the queue complex. Ex.A-6 shows how the properties of the petitioners in W.P. No. 1712/1986 obstruct the view of the temple, taken from the extreme left-side of the first floor of the queue complex corridor. Ex-A-7 taken from the left of the ground floor of the queue complex shows how the petitioners' properties obstruct the clear view. Ex-A-8 to A-11 also show how the properties are coming in the way of the clear view from the queue complex side for the pilgrims passing through the queue complex. Exs. A-12 taken from the first floor of the queue complex shows clear view of the Ananda Nilyam without any obstruction and the petitioners' properties are on the right side.
16. The writ petitioners filed a separate affidavit thereafter with a few photographs to controvert the above position. The photographs filed by the writ petitioners are not helpful at all. We do not think that they have been taken from various points in the basement or the ground floor or the first floor of the queue complex. On a comparative study of the photographs filed by the petitioners and the photographs filed by the T.T.D., we have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the photographs filed by the T.T.D. are more clear and are taken from the relevant points and that they given the proper picture. We are of the view that the buildings of the petitioners in this writ petition No. 2631/1986 and of the petitioners in W.P.No. 1712/86, clearly obstruct the view of the pilgrims sitting in the queue complex in various floors. It is true that the Notification does not specifically refer to the fact that the buildings of the petitioners are causing obstruction with the view of the pilgrims sitting in the queue complex while they look at the temple and does not also say that for the purpose of removing the obstruction, the buildings have to be acquired. As pointed out in M. Padmanabha Iyengar v. Government of A.P. (1 supra) we are of the view that these details need not have been mentioned in the notification. It is implicit in the totality of the integrated development of Tirumala the widening of Streets by acquiring the properties on both sides of the Mada streets and in particular in the South Mada Street wherein the properties are located. The queue complex has been constructed and may be, the theatre which has been constructed may further be improved. The theatre is an open air theatre. Pilgrims sitting in the queue complex could see the various plays, harikathas, dramas that may be conducted in the open auditorium. If the buildings are removed they will be able to see the Ananda Nilayam or Sikharam, considered to be of very great religious and spiritual importance. In those circumstances, we cannot say that the impugned notifications have been issued under any colourable exercise of power. We are of the view that they have been issued for a public purpose, pursuant to the Master Plan on Tirumala Hills and they are perfectly valid. We hold on first point against the writ petitioners.
17. The second point that has been raised is that the T.T.D. is estopped from initiating fresh Land Acquisition proceedings after the "assurance" it had given on 14-3-1981. From the, facts mentioned earlier, it will be noticed that pursuant to certain negotiations between the petitioners and the T.T.D., the petitioners undertook to withdraw their court-cases and given away a part of the land to the T.T.D. in the South Mada Street so that the queue complex could be constructed. The petitioners were granted permission to make constructions in the unacquired portions left with them subject to the structures not obstructing the view of the Gopuram from the queue complex. For the purpose of this point what is relevant is paragraph 8 of the order of the Executive Officer dated 14-3-1981 above referred to. It reads as follows:
"8. It has been "generally assured that in future T.T.D. would not resort to whole-sale acquisition of all the properties situated in this section of the South Mada Street as was originally planned".
It will be noticed that the said clause was one of the clauses mentioned in the said order. In our view, the said clause does not amount to an unequivocal promise made by the T.T.D. that under no circumstances it would acquire the properties of the petitioners, in future. The words 'generally assured' are of significance and they only mean that it was an expression of a moral obligation. It does not amount to any legal obligation. It was only in the nature of general assurance. Further, that was part of the proceedings of the Executive Officer of the T.T.D. It does not come in the way of the Government passing an order of acquisition, may be, pursuant to the letter of the T.T.D. based upon subsequent change of facts. It is well-known that the importance of Tirumala Temple is growing day-today and the number of pilgrims going there to worship are also increasing from time to time. The requirements of such a religious institution cannot be restricted to the requirements at any particular point of time. The requirements change from time to time. In that context, the "general assurance" contained in Paragraph 8 of the orders of the T.T.D. dated 14-3-1981, does not come in the way. Further they do not come in the way of the Government exercising a statutory power under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the plea of promissory estoppel raised by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case. The said contention is accordingly rejected.
18. The third contention that has been raised is that during the course of enquiry under Section 5-A the petitioners have requested that certain documents be summoned by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended that they have not been so summoned and therefore there was violation of principles of natural justice.
19. In this context we may observe that a similar contention was raised by the petitioners in M. Padmanabha lyengar v. Government of A.P. (1 supra). The Division Bench of this court dealt with that submission elaborately in paragraph 20 to 21 of the said judgment. (See A.I.R. page 366 and 367). The learned Judges rejected the said contention and held that it might be there was some irregularity. They also observed that the petitioners full well knew the contents of almost all the documents they required to be called for and that no prejudice had been caused on account of the said documents not being summoned. The learned Judges relied upon the principle of prejudice enunciated by the Supreme Court in K.L. Tirupathi v. State Bank of India, and also observed that the High Court is not bound under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to quash an enquiry on the basis of such an irregularity when interference would not sub-serve public purpose or public interest. The learned Judges relied upon Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah, Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, . The writ petitioners in that case filed S.L.P. Civil No. 8379/90 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11-12-1990. For the aforesaid reasons, we reject the third contention.
20. During the course of arguments, a question arose as to whether the petitioners is both the writ petitions could be provided with alternative accommodation we have already stated that in the reply affidavit the petitioners referred to the fact that other persons whose lands have been acquired have been provided with alternative accommodation on Tirumala Hills by way of exchange or otherwise. In this context, the writ petitioners filed an affidavit mentioning various parts details as to what alternative lands have been provided in various parts of the Tirumala Hills to persons whose lands have been acquired. A detailed plan was produced before us by the T.T.D. mentioning that the areas where the petitioners sought alternative plots are not available as they have been allotted to others in the course of the last two years. We do not propose to go into this aspect of the matter. It will be for the petitioners to make appropriate representations to the authorities for provision of alternative accommodation. We are sure that subject to availability, their representations will be considered sympathetically and within the limits of availability of land.
21. A contention in passing was raised that there is no legal publication of the substance of the Section 4(1) notification in the locality. The Land Acquisition Officer filed counter stating that there was local publication on 29-6-1985 and paper publication on 26-3-1985 and 3-7-1985. The gazette publication of Section 4(1) notification having been made on 19-6-1985, and the local publication on 29-6-1985, we are of the view that there is no substance is this contention.
22. For all the aforesaid reasons both the writ petitions are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.