IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19715 of 2002 Between : K.Venkataramana S/o K.N.Rajendram, R/o Vijayawada , Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Housing,Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept. Secretariat , Hyderabad . 2 Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Vijayawada , Krishna 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ ,order or direction declaring the Notice of the 2nd Respondent in RC.No.A3-7349/2002 Dt:29.6.2002 and Rc.No.A3-7349/2002 dated: 30- 6-2002 seeking to cancel the lease of vacant land of extent of 36 Square Yards (6'x 6') in K.B.N.Shopping Complex , Vijayawada , Krishna Dist in favour of the petitioner as illegal , arbitrary etc., and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.G.JHANSI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, challenge is to the notice, dated 29.06.2002, issued by the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.A3- 7349/2002, in which, there was a proposal to cancel the lease granted in favour of petitioner in respect of 36 square yards of land, situated at K.B.N. Shopping Complex, Vijayawada. 2. There are two pieces of open land; one, in an extent of 145.40 square yards towards Northern side of K.B.N.Complex, Vijayawada, and the other one in an extent of 36 square yards in the entrance of North-West corner of the complex, belonging to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Council has passed a resolution to initially lease out 36 square yards of land, which is in the entrance of the North-West corner of the complex, in favour of the petitioner, on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the directions of the respondents, he has already paid the rent for six months and was also given possession of the land, but however, respondents have issued the impugned notice, asking him whether he is willing to take on lease, the other piece of land admeasuring 145.40 square yards on a rent at the rate of Rs.24,285/- per month, and further, it is stated that there is also a threat for cancellation of lease with regard to 36 square yards, which was already granted in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that asmuch as the lease in respect of 36 square yards was already granted in his favour and the rent for six months was already collected from him, it is not open for the respondents to coerce him to take another piece of land admeasuring 145.40 square yards also, on rent. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that while leasing out 36 square yards of land, the petitioner was asked to enter into an agreement of lease, but he did not execute such agreement. It is stated that if the petitioner is allowed to carry out his hotel business in 36 square yards of land, he would certainly encroach into the remaining open site on Eastern and Southern sides, since the site allotted to him is virtually not sufficient, and he will block the entrance, due to which, the remaining rear side vacant site will not attract any one for lease. 4. By way of interim order, dated 11.10.2002, this Court granted stay of cancellation of lease in favour of the petitioner by keeping it open to the respondents to grant lease in respect of the balance area of 145.40 square yards to others. 5. The impugned notice is a notice, asking the petitioner to state whether he is willing to take on lease, the remaining piece of land admeasuring 145.40 square yards, or not. Though it is the case of the petitioner that there is a lease with regard to 36 square yards of land, but however, it is stated in the counter affidavit that even to that extent of 36 square yards, no lease deed is executed as per the allotment condition notified by the respondents. Be that as it may, it is also to be noted that even according to the petitioner, the said 36 square yards of land was allotted only for a period of three years, commencing from 21st of April 2002, which expired by 20th of April 2005. During the course of arguments, it is fairly submitted by Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for petitioner that there is no renewal of lease even with regard to the extent of 36 square yards, after the expiry of three-year lease period. In view of the fact that the very lease period itself is over with regard to 36 square yards, and further, as it is stated that there is no renewal of lease in favour of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to issue any directions in favour of the petitioner, at this stage. Asmuch as the lease period for 36 square yards of land is already over, it is always open for the respondents to lease out the entire land to others by way of publication of notification. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th June 2009 ajr