HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 12404 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a public trust rendering public service at Ponnur. On a request made by it, the Ponnur Municipality passed a resolution for allotting 800 sq.yards of land in children’s park of that municipality and submitted the same to the Government. The Government, in its turn, issued G.O.Ms.No.614 M.A., dated 21/05/1979, according permission for lease of the land for a period of 25 years subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The renewal becomes necessary in the year 2005. Proposals were forwarded to the Government by the Municipality. Through its orders in G.O.Ms.No.470 M.A., dated 19/04/2006, the Government refused to accord permission for extension of the lease. On the other hand, it directed the Municipality to recover possession of the site forthwith in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and this Court in various matters. Consequently, the Municipality issued notice dated 14/06/2006 requiring the petitioner to handover the site. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The petitioner states that it has incurred huge expenditure for construction of the building and providing facilities. It is also stated that public activities such as immunization of children, extension of treatment to others are being undertaken. The petitioner offers to handover vacant site of 800 sq.yards at two different places within the city. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the presence and functioning of the office of the petitioner in a children park would spoil the atmosphere and its continuance would be contrary to the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court and this Court. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and the Standing Counsel for the Municipality. The request made by the petitioner for allotment of site for construction of its office was acceded to in the year 1979 and lease was granted for a period of 25 years. If the same situation is continued, there should not have been any difficulty either for the Municipality or for the Government to extend the lease. In the recent past, the Supreme Court took serious exception to the use of lands ear-marked for parks, children home etc., for other purposes. By making specific reference to the cases in which such orders are passed, the Government refused to extend the lease. This Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in G.O.Ms.No.470 M.A., dated 19/04/2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his clients are prepared to offer alternative sites of equal extent in different places which are also important locations. It is not a case of mere exchange. In the place where the office of the petitioner is functioning, park is also existing for the use and enjoyment of the children. The very presence of adult activity would spoil the atmosphere. If the petitioner has land at its disposal, it can very well construct building thereon. The building which was constructed by the petitioner in the park can be utilized for the benefit of the children. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any infirmity warranting interference. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is granted time till 31/03/2011 to vacate the premises, on payment of Rs.1,500/- per month payable on or before 10th of every month commencing from July, 2010. Such amount shall exclusively utilize for maintenance of the park and amenities to the children. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 08th June, 2010 SKM