THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 9228 OF 2010 Date of Judgment: 9.11.2011 Between: Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society …Petitioner and The Government of A.P. and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 9228 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein obtained property of third respondent under a registered lease deed dated 4.11.2000 initially for a period of five years together with a clause as to renewal subject to conditions therein. The said lease commenced from 4.11.2000 and by a mutual agreement, the period of lease was extended to 3.11.2010 under a supplementary agreement dated 13.6.2007. For renewal of the lease for further period, correspondence ensued between the petitioner and third respondent-landlord and it appears that negotiations were held for settlement of the terms for the renewal period. Meanwhile the petitioner also came to know that the third respondent was in serious financial problems and there was a proposal pending with the Government to resolve the financial problems by taking back part of the land held by third respondent. While negotiating with the third respondent for renewal of the lease on modified terms, the petitioner has also approached the first respondent-State Government for getting allotment of the very same land which is subject matter of the lease, to itself, in the event of the third respondent surrendering part of the land held by it, to the Government under the rehabilitation package of the Government. The petitioner made several representations to the Government for allotment of the said land to it, on the basis of the policy of the Government enunciated in G.O.Ms. No. 243, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 28.2.2005 and the related policy of the Government on the subject. While those representations of the petitioner including the last representation dated 24.9.2009 were pending with the first respondent for allotment of the land, the petitioner was served with a notice of termination by the third respondent dated 27.3.2010, as there was no consensus among the parties for renewal of the lease. The lease of the petitioner, therefore, stood terminated with effect from 30.4.2010, when the third respondent demanded vacant possession in pursuance of the said termination dated 27.3.2010. The petitioner has thereafter approached this court by the present writ petition seeking a relief that the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in allotting the leased land to itself under perpetual lease is violative of Articles 14, 21, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently sought a direction against the respondents 1 to 3 to allot the leased land to the petitioner. While admitting the writ petition on 22.4.2010, this Court passed the following interim order, “This is an application to direct respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner- Society to continue in the property in an extent of Acs. 5.00 comprised in Survey Nos. 257, 258, 261 and 262 of HMT Township, Qutbullapur Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, for making necessary alterations to the existing building. I have heard Sri L. Ravi Chander learned counsel representing the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government pleader for Industries representing respondents 1 and 2. In para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner averred that in pursuance of the representations made by it for sale of property in question, respondent No.1 issued Memo No. 8916/INF/A2/2002, dated 21-10-2009 to the commissioner of Industries-respondent No.4 and the latter in turn issued Memo dated 03-11-2009 to the General Manager, District Industries Center, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District for submitting a detailed report to him. The petitioner further averred that in response to the said memo, the General Manager, District Industries Center, submitted letter No. 7969/A4/2009 dated 11- 12-2009 to respondent No.4. As the grievance of the petitioner is that no decision has been taken on the abovementioned report, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 4 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in the light of the purported report dated 11-12-2009 of the General Manager, District industries Centre, Balanagar and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Till communication of the decision, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question. Post the WPMP on 10-06-2010.” Now the third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit together with an application for vacating the stay. No counter-affidavit is filed by other respondents. After hearing Mr. S. Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nageshwar Sree, learned counsel for third respondent and learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing for respondents 1 and 4, I am of the view that in view of the detailed hearing on rival contentions, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition itself at this stage, for which all the learned counsel for the parties have consented. It would be evident from the narration of the facts above that the petitioner’s claim against the first respondent-State Government for allotment of the land to itself is quite distinct and different from its liability to third respondent as a lessee. The registered lease deed and its validity, as noted above, is not in dispute and consequently the third respondent as landlord was well within its rights to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, to the extent of seeking possession from the petitioner, the third respondent cannot physically throw out the petitioner and it is open for the third respondent to take appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of possession as permissible under law. As on today and in near future, threat of dispossession of the petitioner does not arise until the third respondent obtain a decree for possession from the competent court of law. So far as the petitioner’s representations to the Government for allotment of the land is concerned, the same depends upon the matter of the policy of the State. In that regard the petitioner has already made number of representations to the first respondent and the petitioner’s request is under consideration of the first respondent. However, the petitioner’s claim that the leased land itself be allotted to it, does not appear sustainable, as the said land belongs to the third respondent and the policy of the first respondent-State Government for allotment of the land to various categories including educational institutions as per its policy has necessarily to be with respect to the land belonging to it and not for somebody’s land. The said representation appears to have been made by the petitioner on a possible assumption that the third respondent would be relinquishing part of its land to the Government. However, in any case, whether the petitioner deserves allotment and whether the policy of the first respondent permits the same are the matters which the first respondent- State has to consider and pass appropriate orders. It cannot at this stage be said that there is any enforceable inaction on the part of the first respondent in that regard. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of the Government land as per its policy in accordance with law, if the petitioner is found eligible. So far as the relief sought for against the third respondent is concerned, the same is obviously misconceived. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed so far as the third respondent is concerned. Consequently, the exparte interim order passed by this court on 22.4.2010 does not survive and it merges with this final order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 9.11.2011 KR