THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6099 of 2009 ORDER: An extent of Acs.2.38 cents in survey No.530/1 of Peruru Village, Tirupathi Mandal, Chittoor District, was under cultivation by the father of the petitioner herein. When that was leased in favour of third parties, in the year 1980, he pursued the remedies before various authorities. Ultimately, through G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 06.04.1993, the Government in Revenue Department, disposed of the revision, and directed that the father of the petitioner be continued as lessee. It is stated that the lessee, the father of the petitioner, died and the petitioner is continuing as lessee. Through memo, dated 03.02.2009, the Government cancelled the lease, and proposed to put the same to auction. The petitioner submits that the Government recognized the rights of long standing lessees and has alienated the same in favour of many persons in Chittoor District itself. He complains that similar treatment is not being accorded to him. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. According to them, the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.318 dated 06.04.1993, were not implemented, and in fact, the petitioner has approached this Court and the matter was considered, as per the directions issued in the revision. According to them, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi, vide proceedings, dated 30.12.1998, and the same was affirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, on 20.11.1999. The District Collector is also said to have confirmed the same, vide order, dated 20.05.2000. The respondents further contend that in the further revision filed by the petitioner before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, the matter was remanded to the District Collector, and after such remand, the Collector issued proceedings, dated 27.12.2005, stating, inter alia, that the land has assumed commercial value, and that it is not at all feasible to grant the lease. Heard Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is no doubt true that the father of the petitioner continued as lessee quite for sometime over the land, referred to above, and the Government allowed his plea in the revision, when the same land was leased to others. The fact, however, remains that G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 06.04.1993, passed by the Government, was not implemented for one reason or the other. In fact, it is in the proceedings, that are initiated for implementation thereof, that the District Collector took the view that the land has assumed commercial viability and it is better to put to auction. The petitioner filed a copy of G.O.Ms.No.1118, dated 08.08.2006, in which the request made by one Sri A.Viswanadha Reddy, lesser in respect land in survey No.234/1 of Vedantapuram Village, was acceded to and the same was alienated, at the market value. In the instant case, the father of the petitioner, who was initial lessee, was discontinued and the order in the revision was not implemented for the past more than one and half decades. This much, however, can be said that in case the land is to be sold by private negotiations, the petitioner shall be accorded priority. On the other hand, if it is sold in public auction, it shall be open to the petitioner to participate therein. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that in case the Government proposes to alienate the land of an extent of Acs.2.38 cents in survey No.530/1 of Peruru Village, Tirupathi Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of private individuals by negotiations, the case of the petitioner shall be considered, on priority basis. On the other hand, it is sold in public auction, it shall be open to the petitioner to participate therein. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05.02.2010. GJ