IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1481 of 2009 Between: Valiveti Kishore … Appellants And The Union of India, rep., by its Deputy Salt Commissioner, AT 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, Tamilnadu State & others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D.L. Pandu Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri Ashok Goud Asst. Solicitor General This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1481 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This appeal arises out of order dated 24.11.2009 in Writ Petition No.25253 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The grandfather of the appellant was granted lease over an extent of Ac.5.80 cents in L.No.76 of Chinnaganjam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District for salt cultivation. After his death, his sons Venkata Narayana, the father of the appellant and Rama Rao, the father of respondent No.3 succeeded to the lease. After the death of the father of the appellant, a fresh lease was granted by the Union of India on 11.01.2008 in favour of several persons including the appellant and respondent No.3. The appellant filed the writ petition with the grievance that the representation made by him to respondent No.1 to demarcate his share from out of the leased land is not being considered. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that all the lessees are collectively entitled to enjoy the benefits under the lease and that in case any internal arrangement is stated to have existed they have to work out their remedies in accordance with law. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly rejected the writ petition. Once the lease has been granted by respondent No.1, it is for the parties under the lease deed to work out their remedies on the basis of the terms of the lease. Respondent No.1 cannot be expected to intervene and adjudicate the internal disputes between the lessees. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP.No.3090 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.01.2010 ES