IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 18272 of 2001 Between: M/s Kumari Picture Palcace Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. Jupudi Ashok Babu, S/o Venkateswar Rao, Ganapavaram W.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, West Godavari District. Eluru. 3 Joint Collector, West Godavari District. Eluru. 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing G.O.Ms.No. 340, dt: 20-4-99. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.M.SIVANANDA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a certiorari to call for the records in connection with the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 20.04.1999, and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. It appears that the father of the petitioner, who is proprietor of the palace, had taken the Government land on lease in the year 1971 for construction of a cinema theatre. He had invested Rs.20,00,000/- for construction of the cinema theatre and had been paying the rents regularly to the Government. The Government was earning a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- besides entertainment tax running into lakhs of rupees and other taxes etc., on the said theatre. When the lease period is coming to expire, he filed an appeal on 5.7.1991 before the authorities for extension of the same for a period of 50 years. But, the Government has not taken any decision thereon. While things stood thus, according to the petitioner, steps were taken by the respondents suddenly to cancel the lease during the pendency of the appeal, forcing his father to file a writ petition. Therefore, the father of the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.4660 of 1993 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to grant ‘S’ Form licence pending disposal of the appeal, subject to condition of the petitioner complying with all the requirements, and to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of the said order, with permission to run the theatre. In spite of such direction, the appeal is not yet disposed of. However, the petitioner requested the Government to sell the land at the market value, based on a certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Ganapavaram, which depicts the market value of the site at Rs.55,000/- per acre. On the contrary, the petitioner received a communication, dated 22.04.1997 from the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department in Memo No.40440/Asn.I(1)/91-14, wherein the attention of the second respondent was invited to the appeal filed by the petitioner informing him to make a deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- which will be adjusted towards the arrears due from him and to furnish the present market value to enable the Government to proceed further. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.2454, dated 22.09.1997 instead of disposing the appeal. Further, the Government stated that in case the petitioner’s request was rejected, then the second respondent may take steps to see that the screening of the films in the theatre is stopped. Thus, it is clear from the above Government letter that the respondents have not applied their mind to the proposal given by the petitioner. Ultimately, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 20.04.1999, fixing the lease amount at Rs.2,66,200/- per annum, subject to condition of increase of lease amount by 10% every year for a period of 20 years and renewal of lease for every five years. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. A detailed counter affidavit is filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In paragraph 11, B.S.O. 24-A, para 9 (c) has been extracted, which reads as follows: “Touring Cinemas, Circuses or dramatic companies:- A reasonable fixed daily charge should be levied in accordance with the rates to be prescribed by the Collector. Collectors should fix for each village and town in their Districts, the rates of charge per square yard or ground or cent that should be leveled. The rates will depend upon the importance of the village or town and the situation of the land. There are, in each village or town. Particular sites in which entertainments are usually held. The Collector will fix the rates for each of these sites. When other sites are applied for the Collector should be addressed for orders as to the rate to be levied.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the lease amount fixed by the respondents at Rs.2,92,800/- is abnormal, unreasonable and arbitrary. He further states that from the year 1991, if every year 10% increase is taken, by 2015, it comes to Rs.28,80,196/- for half acre of the land leased out to the petitioner in which the cinema theatre has been constructed. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that for half acre of land, wherein the petitioner is running a cinema theatre, enhancement of the rent by 10% annually, which ultimately comes to Rs.28 lakh and odd at the end of the lease period, is abnormal, arbitrary and therefore, it requires to be reconsidered by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned G.O. is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Government - first respondent to consider the same by taking the relevant factors into consideration and after hearing the petitioner, pass appropriate orders along with the appeal purported to have been filed him. This exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall be permitted to screen the films on the same terms and conditions prevailing as of now. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.06.2009 kdl To 1 State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, West Godavari District. Eluru. 3 Joint Collector, West Godavari District. Eluru. 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 5 One CC to Government Pleader for Revenue 6 Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}