THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18412 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner encroached an extent of Ac.2.43 cents of land in R.S.No.471/2 and 472/3 of Nandigama Village and Mandal, belonging to Zilla Parishad, Krishna District. He claims to have developed the land over the past decades and paying lease amount every year to the 1st respondent. In the year 2000, auction of leasehold rights was conducted, and the son of the petitioner appears to have become the lessee. The petitioner made application to the 1st respondent to assign the land, by collecting the upset market price. He approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.22372 of 2006, when he was facing eviction. The writ petition was disposed of, on 03-11-2006, directing that the petitioner shall not be evicted, without following the procedure prescribed by law. The 1st respondent issued notice dated 29-07-2008 to the petitioner. It was mentioned that the request of the petitioner for grant of patta, or alienation cannot be acceded to. The petitioner was also required to vacate the land. Reference was made to earlier notices. The petitioner feels aggrieved by this notice. Sri V.H.V.R.R Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is a scheduled tribe, and had developed the land by constructing sheds to provide accommodation to scheduled tribe students, and that the respondents ought to have considered his case for grant of patta, or for alienation. He submits that the representation made by the petitioner is pending with the Government. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the lease, in favour of the petitioner, stood terminated, once a fresh lease was granted in favour of his son, and that as a matter of policy, it has decided not to lease or transfer any lands, belonging to the Zilla Parishad. He submits that the impugned notice accords with the directions issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation. The petitioner remained in possession of the land, initially as an encroacher, and thereafter, as a lessee, up to the year 2000. His status vis-à-vis the land came to an end, with a fresh lease, having been granted in favour of his son. The lease in favour of the son of the petitioner also expired. Therefore, there was no basis for the petitioner to claim possession, once his son was granted the lease. So far as the request of the petitioner for alienation of the land is concerned, the respondents have informed him, in unequivocal terms, that they do not intend to part with their land. The petitioner has no right to continue in possession, once a notice, requiring him to vacate the premises was issued. The impugned notice totally accords with the requirement indicated by this Court in W.P.No.22372 of 2006. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that his client be granted reasonable time, to vacate the premises. The request is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is granted three months time, from today, to vacate the premises. After expiry of three months, it shall be open to the respondents to resume the possession, apart from claiming damages for every day, beyond the stipulated date. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08 -09-2008. KO