IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19264 of 2007 Between: Pathan Fakruddin, S/o. Late Mastan, R/o. Atmakur, Atmakur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nellore District, at Nellore. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore District, at Nellore. 3 The Atmakur Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary, Atmakur, Atmakur Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st Respondent vide L.Dis No. 1590/2007-A3, dated 01-8-2007 and Notice of the 3rd Respondent in ROC No. 20/2007, dated 18-8-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the order of the 1st Respondent vide L.Dis. No. 1590/2007-A3, dated 01-8-2007 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19264 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was granted lease over the open space belonging to Gram Panchayat way back in the year 2000. It is stated that the petitioner has put up temporary structures and is undertaking business. It is also stated that the lease was being extended from time to time up to 31.03.2009 and much before the expiry of that, the lease was cancelled. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents and contends that he is entitled to remain as lessee up to 2009. The Gram Panchayat ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that though the recommendation was made by the Gram Panchayat, ultimately it is for the 1st respondent to take a ﬁnal decision, in this regard and that the lease was cancelled, strictly in accordance with the terms thereof. It is also stated that the revenues of the Gram Panchayat would also improve, if the leasehold rights are put to auction. Heard Sri Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj and Ms.Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat. The exact manner, in which, the petitioner was inducted into the possession of the property of the Gram Panchayat, is not immediately before this Court. There is no written order or direction, enabling the petitioner to raise any structures. Be that as it may, the Gram Panchayat granted lease and has been extending it, from time to time. Even that was cancelled at a later point of time. Once the period, for which the lease was granted, had expired, the cancellation thereof hardly has any affect upon the petitioner. The petitioner is not able to cite any provision of law or place any order passed by any authority, which enables him to remain as lessees. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has not cleared the arrears. The recognized method of granting leasehold rights of the properties held by the Gram Panchayat is by conducting auction, once in every three years. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the steps taken by the Gram Panchayat, to put the leasehold rights of the premises/lands, in question, to auction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 23.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19264 of 2007 Date: 23.09.2008 JSU