IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4129 of 2001 Between: K. Vishnuvardhan Reddy S/o Late K. Audinarayana Reddy R/o Allur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Nellore. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali, Nellore District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Allur, Nellore 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the Government passed in Reference Memo. No.47703/ASN.II(3)/94-11 dated 22-01-1997 thereby not renewing the lease in my favour with respect to an extent of Ac. 44-00 of land comprising of S.No.461 of Gogulapalli Village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, as violative of Principles of Natural Justice, arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4129 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Reference Memo No.47703/Asn.II(3)/94-11 dated 22.01.1997, refusing to renew the lease granted in favour of the petitioner’s father in respect of an extent of Acs.44.00 cents of land in Sy.No.461 of Gogulapalli village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District. 2. According to the petitioner, his father late Sri K. Audinarayana Reddy and one Sri O. Narasa Reddy were granted leases over extents admeasuring Acs.44.00 cents and Acs.66.00 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.461 of Gogulapalli village for cultivating salt. The said leases were for a period of 25 years and were sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No.432 Revenue (P) Department, dated 23.04.1970. It appears that the father of the petitioner died on 20.11.1981 and, thereupon, he made a representation to the District Collector, Nellore, the 2nd respondent herein, seeking transfer of the lease in his favour. However, no orders were passed upon the said representation. In the meanwhile, as the lease period of 25 years was coming to a close, the petitioner made an application on 06.12.1992 seeking renewal of the lease in his favour. It is stated by the petitioner that the other lessee, Sri O. Narasa Reddy, also made a similar request. Upon the representation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is said to have asked the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Kavali, Nellore District, the 3rd respondent herein, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The 3rd respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.1993, in turn asked the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Allur, the 4 th respondent herein, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Basing on the said instructions, the 4th respondent is said to have conducted an enquiry and submitted report dated 28.05.1993 recommending the transfer and renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner under Board Standing Order 24 (a)-8. Accepting the same, the 3rd respondent is said to have recommended the renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner vide his proceedings dated 28.07.1993 addressed to the 2nd respondent, which was in turn reiterated by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 20.10.1993 addressed to the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent renewed the lease in favour of the other lessee, Sri O. Narasa Reddy, and that the 1st respondent did not intimate him as to what orders had been passed upon his application. While the matter stood thus, it is the case of the petitioner that in February, 2001, the 4th respondent inspected the petitioner’s land and directed him to vacate the same. The petitioner claims to have come to know upon enquiry that the 1st respondent passed the impugned orders dated 22.01.1997 refusing to renew the lease in his favour and, thereupon, he obtained the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent recording the refusal to renew the lease in his favour. It is stated that the petitioner could only obtain a copy of the said proceedings on 02.03.2001 and he approached this Court thereafter by way of the present writ petition. 3. The order of the 1st respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of the lease is challenged on the ground that it reﬂects lack of proper consideration of the facts of the case and is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court, by order dated 14.01.2002, directed status quo existing as on that day to be maintained. 4. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, the 4th respondent herein, admitting the facts narrated above. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner was considered ineligible for renewal of the lease as he was not the original lessee. The proceedings of the 1st respondent were said to have been communicated to the 4th respondent vide proceedings of the Collector in D.Dis.No.1780/93 dated 11.04.1997, directing him to take action to resume the subject land. As per the counter, Condition No.4 of the lease deed executed under Board Standing Order 24, imposes a restriction upon the grantee not to transfer the rights conveyed to third parties without the previous sanction of the Government. In the present case, as the grantee died during the subsistence of the lease it cannot be transferred to third parties. This, according to the 4th respondent, forms the substratum of the decision taken by the 1st respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 6. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 22.01.1997 shows that the Secretary to the Government held to the eﬀect that the petitioner’s request for renewal of the lease was not feasible of compliance on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for renewal of the lease as per the rules in force. The said proceedings, to say the very least, are cryptic and completely devoid of reasoning. The counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 4th respondent seeks to supplement the reasoning, which is lacking in the impugned proceedings. Even if this Court overlooks the fact that such a procedure is not permissible, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner[1], holding that the proceeding must be judged on its own reasoning and reasoning cannot be supplemented or supplied through a counter aﬃdavit thereafter, the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled in the present case discloses that the reasoning putforth by the 4th respondent is also utterly lacking in merit. It is not the case of the respondents that the subject lease granted under Board Standing Order 24 is not heritable. There is no explanation as to how the condition of non-transferability would be attracted in the present case. The petitioner claims a right for renewal in the status of an heir to the original grantee of the lease and not as a third party. There is no transfer to a third party as is sought to be asserted by the 4th respondent. It is not as if the respondents have taken a policy decision not to renew such lessees, as is evident from the fact that the lease of the other lessee, Sri O. Narasa Reddy, was renewed for a period of 25 years. The only ground for non-consideration of the petitioner’s request for a similar renewal is the perceived ineligibility on his part. The said perception of ineligibility does not stand to scrutiny and is found to be utterly lacking in merit. The impugned proceeding dated 22.01.1997 is accordingly set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of the lease, as per his request made in the year 1992 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.44.00 cents in Sy.No.461 of Gogulapalli village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, eschewing the ground of ineligibility as pointed out in the counter aﬃdavit. It is admitted that the petitioner continued in possession of the land pursuant to the status quo order passed by this Court. Needless to state, the period of occupation of the petitioner in pursuance of this Court’s order shall also be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the renewed lease period under the order of renewal passed by the respondent authorities, after considering the case of the petitioner for such renewal as per the terms and conditions prescribed under Board Standing Order 24. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 10.11.2008 v v [1] (1978) 1 SCC 405