IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. Nos.11636, 11637, 11638, 11639, 11640, 11641, 11642, 11643, 11644, 11645 and 11646 of 2010 Between: Dwara Rama Krishna and others … Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry Rep.by its Commissioner, Rajahmundry. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. Nos.11636, 11637, 11638, 11639, 11640, 11641, 11642, 11643, 11644, 11645 and 11646 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The subject matter and the relief sought for in these writ petitions are similar in nature therefore, these writ petitions are disposing of by this common order. This batch of writ petitions have been filed seeking for issuance o f Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the collective representation dated 30.03.2010 and their individual representations vide different dates for renewal of lease in respect of their plots situated at Timber Yard, Aryapuram, Rajahundry, East Godavary District for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 by enhancing the lease amount by 33.1/3% as done in the previous years, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent not to evict the petitioners from their respective plots. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are running their business for the last 60 years and the then Rajahmundry Municipality has granted lease for running their business and renewing the same, from time to time. The lease amount has to be enhanced by 33% by the respondent Corporation for every three years and the same was being enhanced. For the lease period 2007-2010, the lease amount was enhanced from Rs.15,833/- to Rs.23,750/-. While things stood thus, the respondent Corporation issued a notice dated 06.01.2007 asking the petitioners to pay the lease amount by enhancing 50% and the lease period was renewed by three years from 31.03.2007. Thereafter, notice dated 19.03.2008 was issued by the respondent Corporation directing the petitioners to vacate their respective plots, within a period of ten days, failing which, the possession will be taken forcibly. Questioning the said notice, the petitioners have filed W.P. No.7034 of 2008 and initially while admitting the same, directed to maintain status quo subject to deposit of enhanced leased amount and eventually, the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 06.11.2009 setting aside the notice impugned in the said writ petition. The Saw Mill and Depot Owners Association made a collective representation dated 30.03.2010 and the petitioners also made representations individually in different dates to the respondent Corporation with a request to renew the lease period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 by enhancing the lease amount by 33.13% by paying enhanced lease amount for the year 2010-2011. Since the respondent Corporation did not consider their representations and pass any orders renewing the lease as done earlier, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the land belongs to the respondent Corporation, the petitioners are in possession and running their business for the last 60 years under lease agreement as lessees. As per the lease agreement, the petitioners have to pay lease amount by enhancing 33% for every three years. Accordingly, the petitioners are paying and the respondent Corporation renewing the same. But, for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities, though the petitioners have made collective representation dated 30.03.2010, through their Association, besides individual representations, by paying enhanced amount that was encashed by the authorities, no orders have been passed renewing their lease period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013. It is also submitted that on earlier occasion, the respondent authorities have issued notice to the petitioners to vacate their premises but on filing a writ petition before this Court that notice was set aside. Therefore, the petitioners are now under threat that they may be vacated forcibly. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is true that the petitioners are lessees over the plots belonging to the respondent Corporation wherein the petitioners are conducting their timber and saw mill businesses. Since the respondent Corporation is planning to construct houses for the houseless poor persons, the said land is required for the public purpose. Since the lease period is expired by 30.03.2010, the petitioners have no right to continue over the land belongs to the respondent Corporation. He disputed about encashment of lease amount stated to have been sent by the petitioners enclosing with their representations and it needs verification. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though they are conducting their business for the last sixty years by paying lease amount and for term period of three years from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 and for the year 2010-2011 they have paid enhanced lease amount that was enchased but the respondent authorities have not considered their representations and passed any orders renewing their lease period and they are under the threat that they may be vacated forcibly. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession and conducting their business and their lease period is renewing from time to time. It is also not in dispute that earlier the respondent authorities have issued notice directing the petitioners to vacate their premises but by filing writ petition initially obtained interim direction and eventually that notice was set aside. Now the petitioners are under threat that they may be vacated forcibly. The learned standing counsel submitted that the land is required for constructing houses to the houseless poor, if that is so, the respondent authorities have to follow the procedure but without following the procedure, in accordance with law, the respondent authorities cannot ask the petitioners to vacate the premises. Coming to the aspect of renewal, it is categorical submission of the petitioners that they have made collective representation through their Association dated 30.03.2010 besides individual representations requesting the authorities to renew their lease period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013. It is also submitted that along with their representations they have also paid enhanced lease amount for the year 2010-2011 but the learned standing counsel admits the same subject to verification. It is clear from the above that the petitioners have made their collective representation about nine months back but the respondent authorities did not pass any orders on their representations. Therefore, it is appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions directing the respondent authorities to consider their representations and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the respondent Corporation is directed to consider the representation dated 30.03.2010 along with individual representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo, as on today, with regard to possession of the plots, shall be maintained. With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 30.12.2010 LSK