THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29278 of 2011 Date: 02.11.2011 Between: Metla Naga Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner and The Special Officer (E.O.), Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Indukurpet Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29278 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Ch. Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to evict him from shop No.1 of Indukurpet Gram Panchayat, SPSR Nellore District, without notice and without considering his claim for extension of lease on enhanced lease amount, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The case of the petitioner as pleaded and presented at the hearing is that, the petitioner is in occupation of shop No.1 of Indukurpet Gram Panchayat having been inducted as a lessee in the auction held in the year 1999. The said shop was leased out to him on a monthly rent of Rs.720/- and he is now paying rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.1,040/- per month. He obtained licence from the competent authority to sell, exhibit and distribute the insecticides under a valid licence granted under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioner states that he invested huge amounts for running the said business and thus he is entitled for extension of lease in respect of the said shop. He also submits that he is willing to pay the enhanced rent and though he expressed his willingness to do so, the respondents are not considering his claim for extension of lease. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the aforesaid facts, seeks to impress upon the Court by contending that the lease in respect of the immovable property of a Gram Panchayat should be for a minimum period of three years. The learned counsel cites Rule 12 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 11.6.1966 titled as “Rules relating to Receipts and Expenditure of Gram Panchayat”, which states that the lease of buildings and lands of the Gram Panchayat should be effected by public auction. The petitioner relies on the Executive instructions issued under the said rule, which states that, in case of lease of lands and buildings, if it is advantageous to renew the lease in favour of the person to whom it was originally granted, the Gram Panchayat may, with the previous sanction of the District Collector, dispense with the public auction. The petitioner, therefore, states that as per the said Executive instructions, he is entitled for extension of lease. 5. I am unable to accept the said contention for two reasons, firstly; the aforesaid rules were issued under the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. The said Act was repealed on the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act”). Section 276 of the Act relating to Repeal and Savings has not saved the operation of the rules framed under the old Act, except the application of Sections 8 and 18 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891; and secondly, even the old rules indisputably provide for leasing of the lands and buildings only by public auction and not otherwise. Therefore, the Executive instructions, which are sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, do merit any consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has established his business by spending huge amounts and, in that view of the matter, there is an obligation on the part of the respondents to consider his request for extension of lease. 7. I am unable to accept the said contention also. The petitioner does not dispute that the leasehold rights in respect of the subject premises were granted, pursuant to which he was inducted into possession, was only for a period of one year. That being the position, further grant of leasehold rights in respect of the said premises shall be only through public auction and, at any rate, not by extending the lease in favour of the petitioner on payment of enhanced rent. Mere establishment of the business by spending huge amounts, does not confer any right on the petitioner for extension of lease nor it imposes any obligation on the respondents to consider his case for extension of lease. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 02.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29278 of 2011 02.11.2011 (Msr)