IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1656 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/09/2008 in WP NO : 18412 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Chadala Janakirama Rao S/o. Ammaiah Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Special Chief Secretary, Panchayat, Andhra Pradesh, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Government Pleader of Panchayat Raj The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1656 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is filed assailing the order, dated 08.09.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition W.P.No.18412 of 2008, while granting three months time to the writ petitioner from the date of that order to vacate the subject premises. 3. The said writ petition was filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent, in issuing notice, dated 29.07.2008, whereby the writ petitioner was directed to vacate the subject premises. 4. Appellant is the writ petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the said writ petition. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that though, initially, the writ petitioner was an encroacher in an extent of Ac.2.42 cents of land in R.S.Nos.471/2 and 472/3 of Nandigama Village and Mandal of Krishna District, belonging to Zilla Parishad, Krishna District, subsequently, he developed the said premises and that, for the past several decades, he has been paying lease for the said premises every year without fail. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-Zilla Parishad, Krishna District, contended that the lease granted in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the said premises had expired and it was decided not to lease or transfer any of the premises belonging to the first respondent in favour of third parties; and that, when once a notice was issued requiring the writ petitioner to vacate the said premises, he has to necessarily vacate the same. 8. The writ petitioner has been in possession of the said premises, initially, as an encroacher, and, thereafter, with effect from 2000 as a lessee, which stood expired as on the date of filing of Writ Petition No.22372 of 2006 before this Court. But, the request of the writ petitioner for alienation of the said premises in his favour is still under consideration and no decision has been taken yet either way. But, as per the version of the respondents, it appears, they informed the writ petitioner that they are not intending to part with the rights over the said premises. 9. When the lease hold rights over the said premises were sought to be auctioned, the son of the writ petitioner appears to have become the lessee. Further, it appears, the writ petitioner has made an application to the first respondent to assign the said premises on market value or on lease. Earlier, he filed Writ Petition No.22372 of 2006, which was disposed of with a direction that the writ petitioner shall not be evicted, without following the procedure prescribed under law. 10. The learned single Judge did not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and recorded that no relief as prayed for, in the said writ petition, can be granted to the writ petitioner. 11. However, at that stage, there was a request made by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner may be granted reasonable time to vacate the said premises. Though the said request was opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-Zilla Parishad, the learned single Judge, having taken the stock of entire situation, was pleased to grant three months time from the date of that order to the writ petitioner to vacate the said premises. It is that order which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 12. The merits of the case need not be gone into, inasmuch as, the same are not in dispute. Even as per the version of the writ petitioner, initially, he was an encroacher and later on, he became a lessee of the said premises. Even the lease stood expired by the time he filed the Writ Petition No.22372 of 2006 before this Court and the same was disposed of. The application filed by him seeking assignment of the said premises in his favour was also rejected by the first respondent and notice to quit the said premises was also given and as a consequence thereof, it is imperative for the writ petitioner to vacate the same, inasmuch as, he has no valid right to continue in the said premises, belonging to a local body. 13. Another debatable question is as to whether the first respondent, which is a local body, has a right to assign the premises as per the laws of assignment. 14. Even this question need not be gone into by this Court, at this stage, for the reason that an application/revision/ representation is already said to have been filed by the writ petitioner on 27.02.2003. It is further on record that the Government could not entertain the said application/revision/ representation on account of pendency of Writ Petition No.22372 of 2006 before this Court, at that point of time. 15. However, now, since there are no orders in favour of the writ petitioner permitting him to continue in possession of the said premises, the first respondent can proceed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.18412 of 2008, dated 08.09.2008, and see that the writ petitioner is evicted from the said premises. 16. But, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances, more particularly, keeping in view the nature of usage of the said premises i.e., running a hostel for the tribal students free of cost etc., the eviction shall not be given effect to for a period of six months from today. 17. Since there is a ray of hope for the writ petitioner that the Government would pass orders in his favour, keeping in view the welfare activities that are being undertaken by him, we feel it expedient to direct the second respondent to dispose of the application/revision/representation filed by the writ petitioner. 18. In any event, the writ petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application/revision/representation to the second respondent within one month from today, upon which, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same, within three months therefrom, in accordance with law. 19. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is disposed of, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 12th December 2008 DR .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Special Chief Secretary, Panchayat, Andhra Pradesh, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 2 CCS to Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 2CD copies