THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.29645 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioner, who was an unsuccessful bidder, has filed this writ petition complaining that it is likely to be dispossessed from the premises forcibly. The petitioner was allowed to occupy vacant place at Model Rythu Bazar, Erragadda, Hyderabad on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- by proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 05-01-2000. The petitioner established a nursery. On eve of the expiry of the earlier allotment, the petitioner made representation dated 08-10-2010 for extension for one more year. The 4th respondent-Estate Officer accepted the representation and extended the allotment on enhancement of 15% rent from 01-11-2010 to 31-10-2011. On the expiry of the said period, the 4th respondent issued a notification dated 03-11-2011 proposing to allot the said site on auction. The petitioner along with others participated in the auction. One, Netaji quoted the highest amount of Rs.9,980/-, whereas the petitioner offered Rs.6,500/-. The petitioner was earlier served with a notice dated 20-10- 2011 to vacate the stalls installed by her within 7 days of the expiry of allotment order. Contending that he is not liable to be dispossessed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation appearing for respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in occupation of the site ever since 2000 and respondents are extending the allotment every year. The petitioner was under the impression that in the same fashion allotment would be extended and hence respondents are not justified in conducting the auction. I am unable to accept the contention. Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted the site on her representation specifically for the period from 01-11-2010 to 31-10-2011. It is not as if the petitioner was taken by surprise about the auction. As the petitioner has admitted that she was also a participant in the auction, there is nothing extra-ordinary which could have sprung surprise on the petitioner. Realising the situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has established nursery, she requires at least three months time so as to enable her to secure alternative accommodation. In the normal course, this Court would have considered the said request. However, since the allotment has been auctioned, the 4th respondent would be under an obligation to hand over the site to the highest bidder, in default, the 4th respondent would perhaps be subjected to consequences that might arise due to non-handing over the site to the bidder. The petitioner whose period of allotment has expired and who could not succeed in the bid has no legal right to remain in occupation and at the same time prevent those who are legally sought to be inducted. In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 05th November, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.29645 of 2011 Date : 05-11-2011 Between : M/s.New Radha Kamal Nursery, rep. by its Proprietor Smt.P.Anuradha, wife of Rajesh, aged 36 years, Occ : Nursery Plants Business, Rythu Bazar, Erragadda, Hyderabad, resident of H.No.7-1-246/26, BJJR Colony, Balkampet, Hyderabad .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 Others .. Respondents