IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SUNDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11483 of 2009 Between: Y. Naga Malleswar Rao S/o. Raghavaiah R/o.Pedapala Parru, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, M.P., Mudinepally, Krishna District. 3 The Head Master, Zilla Parishad High School, Pedapala Parru, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna 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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of lease hold rights for the agricultural land belonging to Z.P. High School, Pedapalaparru Village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District as per the upset price fixed by the 1st respondent with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the applicant for extending the lease hold rights of the agriculture property for the year 2009-10 and seeking to confer the lease hold rights to others without taking into consideration the loss sustained by the petitioner in the earlier year 2008-09 due to heavy rains and floods is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D. BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he was granted lease over agriculture land belonging to Zilla Parishad High School, Pedapalaparru village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District, six years ago, and it was extended for the period 2008-2009, but due to heavy rains, the entire crop raised by him during the said period was badly damaged, as a result, he sustained heavy loss. Therefore, he made representations dated 29.05.2009 and 04.06.2009 in succession to the 1st respondent seeking further extension of leasehold rights over the agricultural property for the year 2009-2010, but his grievance is that the 1st respondent, without considering his representations and passing appropriate orders thereon, is seeking to confer the leasehold rights to others. Hence, the writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, admittedly, has made representations to the 1st respondent only on 29.05.2009 and 04.06.2009, and it is too premature to say that the 1st respondent-Chief Executive Officer, would not consider them. The petitioner, without even giving time to the authority to act on his representations, has filed the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is premature, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from considering the representations dated 29.05.2009 and 04.06.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, and passing appropriate orders thereon. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order that may be passed by the respondents upon considering his representations, then he is at liberty to challenge the same in a separate writ petition. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th June, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in three days B/o bcj