THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 1290 of 2004 Dated: 21.09.2010 Between: Sri Vinayaka Janmabhumi Punaravasa Shop Yajamanyula Samkshema Sangam, Visakhapatnam and 13 others. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 1290 of 2004 O R D E R : The 1st petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and the petitioners 2 to 28 are the members of the said society. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notices dated 11.10.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent-Chodavaram Gram Panchayat calling upon them to pay the rents with effect from 08.02.2000 to September, 2003 in respect of the shops in their occupation is arbitrary and illegal. The material available on record shows that the petitioners were initially eking out their livelihood by doing petty business in small shops on the road margin opposite RTC complex near old bus stand, Chodavaram. In the year 1997, the shops of the petitioners were demolished in the process of the road widening. However, a shopping complex was constructed by the Government under Punaravasa programme with Janmabhumi funds and the shops were leased out to the displaced persons including the petitioners herein. It is claimed that the petitioners had contributed 30% for the construction of the shopping complex besides incurring additional expenditure for furnishing the shops and obtaining electricity connections. It is also contended that the allotments were made in favour of the petitioners without stipulating any conditions. Thus, according to the petitioners they acquired absolute rights in respect of respective shops allotted to them. However, the impugned notices came to be issued by the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat stating that as per the instructions of the Government the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 06.09.2000 fixing the rent of Rs.310/- per month which was approved by the District Collector’s proceedings dated 19.12.2001, and therefore the said minimum rent should be paid by the petitioners from 08.02.2000 onwards. Accordingly, the petitioners were called upon to pay a minimum rent of Rs.310/- each for the period from 08.02.2002 to September 2003 for a period of 43 months within one week. The said action of the Gram Panchayat is challenged in this writ petition contending that as the petitioners had acquired absolute rights in respect of the shops allotted to them, they are not liable to pay any rents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat it is contended that the petitioners were originally encroachers over the road margin and they were evicted during the course of road widening in the year 1997. However, the Government having decided to rehabilitate the displaced petty vendors, the Government had constructed shops under Janmabhumi programme and issued G.O.Ms.No.560 dated 22.12.1997, according to which the expenditure should be borne by the Government and the beneficiaries in the ratio of 70% and 30%. Accordingly, the shops were constructed and handed over to the beneficiaries on condition of payment of nominal rents for five years and thereafter they shall pay the market rents. It is contended that the impugned notices were rightly issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.560 dated 22.12.1997. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.560 dated 22.12.1997 shows that for the purpose of rehabilitating the persons below the poverty line, who have been affected during removal of encroachments on National Highways, the District Collectors were permitted to take over the lands of other departments and to construct shops/bunks in the lands and lease out the same on nominal rent to the displaced persons. It was also added that the property in question should remain with the department whose lands were utilized for construction of the shops/bunks and after five years the concerned institutions would collect market related rents from the rehabilitated persons. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the impugned notices were issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.560 dated 22.12.1997. However, G.O.Ms.No.560 does not provide for 30% contribution by the beneficiaries, whereas the specific plea of the petitioners is that they had been contributed 30% for construction of the shopping complex. The 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat in its counter affidavit did not answer the plea of the petitioners that they had contributed 30% of the expenditure. In case such contribution is made by the beneficiaries, the question that requires consideration is whether G.O.Ms.No.560 dated 22.12.1997 is attracted to the shops in occupation of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent- District Collector to enquire into the whole issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to the liability of the petitioners, if any, for payment of rents for the shops in their occupation. The petitioners are permitted to submit their objections/representations, if any before the 1st respondent-District Collector within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall make the necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the impugned notices dated 11.10.2003 shall remain suspended. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.09.2010 KLP