IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 29422 of 1998 Between: Indian Commerce and Ind.Co.Ltd.,Proprietors M/s Kowtha Steel Products rep by its director,K.L.Manohar, S/o K.Mohanra Sastry R/o Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Executive Officer, Ramavarappadu Grampanchayat, Vijayawada Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Asst.Engineer,Public Works Department Krishna Eastern Division,Vijayawada,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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasruing 880 sq.yards in R.S.No.100,106 and 112(old Nos.95 and 96) Right bund of Ryves canal,Ramavarappadu Village,Vijayawad Mandal,Krishna district, without following the procedure of law and further direct respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for assignment of the said land to the petitioner and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 29422 OF 1998 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the land in R.S.No.100, 106 and 112, right bund of Ryves canal, Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The petitioner’s case, in short, is that he was given an extent of 880 sq. yards of land in R.S.No.100, 106 and 112, on lease for establishing his factory in the year 1951, that he had been using the said site for storage of sand, that the lease was continued for over a period of 3 years and that the necessary crown grant was accepted. Petitioner would submit that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.981 dated 9.5.1968, had enhanced the canal rent on all P.W.D plots in Vijayawada town fixing the rent at Rs.100/- per month for each plot in addition to land cess. Petitioner contended that they were regularly paying rent at Rs.25/- per plot of 440 sq. yards in addition to land cess at 37% and that they had paid canal berm rent from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. Petitioner would submit that they had requested the respondents to assign the leased out land in their favour and that their request was still pending consideration of the authorities. Petitioner would contend that they were in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 40 years and that the lease is subsisting as on date. All that the Government had asked the petitioner, under the proceedings dated 9.5.1968, is for payment of rent of Rs.100/- per plot and, since the petitioner was in possession of two plots, the amount they were required to pay would be less than Rs.300/- per month. With regards their request for being assigned the land leased in their favour, no provision of law which requires such request to be accepted has been brought to the notice of this Court. I see no reason, therefore, to direct the respondents to assign these two plots of land in favour of the petitioner. Except for a bald averment, there is no material on record to show that the respondents were interfering with the petitioner’s possession. On the other hand, it is the petitioner who has, without any justification, refused even to pay the minimal rent of less than Rs.300/- per month for the two plots of land in Vijayawada. I see no reason to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 12-8-2008 asp