THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.25944 OF 2005 BETWEEN: Fishermen Welfare Association (regd. No.57 of 1988), 3-18 B-2A, Road No.3, Ayodhya Nagar, Kakinada-1, East Godavari District, rep. by its President. PETITIONER And 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for MA & UD & Sri S. Nageswar Reddy The Court made the following. ORDER: The petitioner-association consists of the members belonging to the fishermen community. In order to construct a marriage hall exclusively for the fishermen community, the petitioner approached the then Kakinda Municipality. The council by the resolution No.746 dated 29.03.1993 accepted the application and resolved to allot Ac.0.40 cents of land situated in L.P.No.56 of 71 and also recommended to the Government for approval of the resolution. Although in the first instance the approval was rejected, but on reconsideration the State Government approved the proposal and accordingly issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.721, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J1) Department, dated 27.12.1999. Permission thereby was accorded to the Municipal Commissioner, Kakinada to allot the said site to the petitioner on a long term lease basis for a period of 15 years at a nominal rent of Rs.100/- per annum subject to the conditions that the marriage hall should be constructed within one year and the premises should be used only for the marriages of the members of the fishermen community. Thereupon, a communication dated 16.06.2000 was addressed to the petitioner calling upon it to execute a lease agreement. To the same effect another communication dated 8.08.2002 was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner. The petitioner by addressing a letter dated 29.08.2002, expressed its readiness to execute the agreement. Although, the petitioner was ready and willing to take the site after executing a lease agreement, there was no further progress from the municipality. It is in those circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in executing the lease agreement and to direct the 3rd respondent to register the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the orders of the State Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.721 M.A., dated 27.12.1999. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Nageswar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has been allotted a site as long back as on 29.03.1993 and the same was also approved by the State Government on 27.12.1999. Since then, indisputably the petitioner has been awaiting for execution of lease agreement and delivery of possession of the site. If the matter had rested there, perhaps the petitioner would have been entitled for the relief. However, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the subject site in L.P.No.56 of 71 is meant for open space and the same was allotted by mistake. It is stated that realizing the same, the municipal council passed a further resolution No.653 dated 29.01.2004 resolving to cancel the allotment and accordingly addressed letter dated 20.07.2004 to the Government. It is stated that the matter is still pending consideration. That being so, if the subject site is open space, the same could not have been automatically allotted for construction of marriage hall. The State Government is now seized of the matter, which is awaiting consideration. For the reasons as above, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. It is however, clarified that in the event of the State Government reiterates earlier approval continuing the allotment already made, it is needless to say that the 3rd respondent shall take appropriate steps to execute necessary documents in favour of the petitioner. Subject to the observations the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 1st February, 2011 Js.