IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27779 of 2008 Between: Alluri Seetha Rama Raju Foundation, Rep. by its Secretary, A.V.Subba Raju ..... Petitioner AND The Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Seetharam Chaparla Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt.G.Jhansi, SC for MCV Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for irrigation and CAD The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was given on lease an extent of 11,625 square yards of land, which belongs to the Irrigation Department, but under the custody of respondent No.1, for a period of ten years, for development of the same as park in the name of late Sri Alluri Setha Rama Raju subject to the conditions contained in lease deed, dated 01-02-2002. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the said lease deed, it has developed the park by spending an amount of Rs.9 lakhs. By proceedings, dated 14-11- 2008, respondent No.2 has transferred an extent of 1200 square meters in RS.No.115/A, which also belongs to the Irrigation Department, in favour of the Ground Water Department for construction of an office building. The main grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that its rights are likely to be affected as the land, which was allotted by respondent No.2 in favour of the Ground Water Department, is likely to overlap with the land, which was leased out in its favour by respondent No.1. Along with the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, a sketch has been filed wherein it is shown that the red marked area, which is stated to be allotted under the impugned proceedings, is different from the pink marked area, which was given on lease to the petitioner by respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation representing respondent No.3 has submitted, with reference to the said sketch, that the two areas referred to above do not overlap with each other and therefore, the impugned proceedings do not, in any manner, affect the interests of the petitioner. Having regard to this submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of 11,625 square yards covered by lease deed, dated 01-02-2002, for construction of building by the Ground Water Department so long as the said lease deed continues to be in force. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.No.240 of 2008 and WPMP.No.36399 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 23rd June, 2011 lur