IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10216 of 2005 Between: Chintagunta Changalaraya Naidu, S/o. Sanjeevi Naidu, R/o. Mantripalem (V), Parwada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 4 Vice Chairman, ' Visakhapatnam Urban Developmetn Authority, Visakhapatnam. 5 Mandal Revenue Officer, parwada mandal, Parwada, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. SEKHAR FOR MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.4: MS. V.PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 09.12.2004 of respondent No.3 whereby he directed the urban development authorities to identify Government lands and other lands in and around their areas having the potentiality for undertaking comprehensive new township development and approach him for transfer of such lands. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he was granted lease of Acs.2.00 of land in Survey No.266 (Part) of Mantripalem Village for a period of ten years for installation of stone crushing unit, by the Tahsildar, Anakapalli in his proceedings, dated 17.11.1980; that by proceedings, dated 04.12.1990, the District Collector, respondent No.3, renewed the said lease for a period of ten years from 12.12.1990 to 11.11.2000 and that he submitted an application on 18.10.2000 to renew the said lease for a further period of ten years up to 10.11.2010. The petitioner averred that the said land was under his possession and enjoyment along with the stone crushing unit from 17.11.1980 and at the instance of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings wherein he decided to handover the advance possession of the lands, a list of which was sent by respondent No.4 and that the land in possession of the petitioner is also mentioned in the said list. Apprehending that respondent No.5 is likely to handover the possession of his land without following due process of law, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). The case of the petitioner, as noted above, is that the lease granted in his favour on 17.11.1980 was renewed up to 11.11.2000 and no further renewal has been made since then. His grievance is that though his application for further renewal was pending with respondent No.5, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are attempting to take possession of his land even before disposing of the application for renewal of lease. The petitioner has not pleaded that the lease earlier granted in his favour is governed by any statutory provision. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the lease deed, under which he is conferred with right to apply for renewal. Unless the petitioner is able to show that his right to apply for renewal of lease is traceable either to a statutory provision or the term of the lease, there is no obligation for the respondents to consider his application for renewal of lease when once the petitioner’s lease period expired. In the absence of such an obligation on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to seek a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to dispose of his pending application. Similarly, the petitioner is unable to show any legal right accrued to him to seek renewal of the lease. Hence, this Court cannot countenance the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents cannot take possession of the land without first disposing of the renewal application. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned proceedings of respondent No.3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.13245 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th JULY, 2008. kvni