IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7061 of 2009 Between: V. Sankar Reddy S/o. Ammi Reddy R/o. Yerukondavari Street, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Pandiri Mahadevudu Kotilingala Chowltry Rep. by its Assistant Commissioner & Executive Officer Kotilingalapeta, Rajahmundry. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the auction notification dt. 25-03- 2009 in Rc.No.B1/694/2008 issued by the 2nd respondent for leasing of 1600 sq. yds. as illegal, arbitrary null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents to lease out the said land of 1600 sq. yards in T.S.No. 120 of Rajahmundry which belongs to the 2nd respondent herein to the petitioner herein on payment of annual rent and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER:- This Court while ordering rule nisi and calling for records on 2-4- 2009 in W.P.M.P.No.9246/2009 made the following order:- Auction, as scheduled, may go on, but, it shall not be finalized, until further orders. Notice.” 2. W.V.M.P.No.1632/2009 and W.V.M.P.No.1982/2009 are filed to vacate the interim order dt.2-4-2009 and when these vacate applications are taken up for hearing, the Counsel on record made a request for final disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. 3. Sri M.V.Suresh, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the stand taken in the counter affidavits and would maintain that inasmuch as only approximate extent had been shown in the tender-cum-public auction, with the fond hope that the rest of the extent also utilized, the petitioner had spent heavy amount, in fact, in the light of the conduct of the authorities only, the petitioner had proceeded with such spending and hence the petitioner is seriously prejudiced. 4. The learned G.P. for Endowments however would maintain that when specific extent had been given to the petitioner, the petitioner has no right relating to the rest of the extent. The learned G.P. for Endowments also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavits filed in this regard. 5. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned standing Counsel representing R.2 had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit filed along with W.V.M.P.No.1632/2009 and further would maintain that inasmuch as one Sunanda became the successful bidder relating to an extent of 1600 sq.yards of vacant site in public auction, the highest bid being Rs.15/- per square yards, at this stage, the interim order granted by this Court would come in the way of finalizing the auction and hence the same to be vacated and the writ petition to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the auction notification dt.25-3-2009 in Rc.No.Ex.B.1/694/2008 issued by the 2nd respondent by leasing of 1600 sq.yards as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents to lease out the said lands of 1600 sq.yards in T.S.No.120 of Rajahmundry which belongs to the 2nd respondent herein to the petitioner herein on payment of annual rent and to pass such other suitable orders. 7. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is doing business in timber. Further it is stated that R2 which is a chowltry under the control of the Endowments department is possessed vast lands and that the 2nd respondent vide reference Rc.No.Ex.B.1/474/2007, dt.16-9-2007 issued an auction notification in respect of the lands which are under its control. There are several lands which were the subject matter of auction notification. There were about 62 items which were subject matter of the above mentioned tender. However, for the purpose of this writ petition item No.62 of the Auction notification dt.16-9-2007 which is an extent of 2000 sq.yds., in T.S.No.20 is relevant land relating to the above writ petition. It is further stated that the land mentioned in item No.62 is a deep tank and condition No.16 of the said notification specifically states that the person who will be the highest bidder in respect of that item has to fill up the tank with sand at his expense and to do business as per the schedule given in the tender. It is further stated that the auction notification dt.16-9-2007 is to lease out the lands for a period of three years commencing from 1-10-2007 to 30-9- 2010. Further it is stated that the petitioner became the highest bidder in respect of item No.62 of the auction schedule and he paid the required amount of Rs.12,000/- towards the annual rent for leasing out the lands mentioned in item No.62 and also further stated that the petitioner had paid the rent for the year 1-10-2008 to 31-3-2009. Further it is stated that while the matter stood thus, the petitioner noticed recently that the lands which are given to the petitioner under lease as per the auction notification dt.16-9-2007 is more than 2000 Sq.Yds. The petitioner came to know about this fact when he tried to fix fencing to the lands given to him as there is a problem of material being stolen by unknown persons. Immediately after coming to know that the lands are more than 2000 Sq.Yds. the petitioner gave a representation to the 2nd respondent bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the land in T.S.No.120 is more than 2000 Sq.Yds. and also that the petitioner is prepared to pay the rent for the remaining land of 1600 Sq.Yds. as per the auction notification dt.16-9-2007. However, by inadvertence, a copy of the representation given to the 2nd respondent was not kept with the petitioner, and as such he is not in a position to place the same before this Court. The 2nd respondent without considering petitioner’s representation is proceeding further to conduct auction of leasehold rights in respect of the remaining 1600 Sq.Yds. in T.S.No.120. Further it is stated that the 2nd respondent herein has issued an auction notification dt.25-3-2009 in Rc.No.Ex.B.1/694/2008. As per the said notification auction in respect of remaining 1600 Sq.Yds. in T.S.No.120 is going to be held on 6-4-2009. Hence, the present writ petition is filed assailing impugned notification issued by the 2nd respondent herein calling for tenders in respect of remaining 1600 Sq.Yds. in T.S.No.120. Further it is stated that the petitioner had spent huge expenditure for the purpose of filling up the deep tank in T.S.No.120 of Rajahmundry. It is also stated that as per the auction notification dt.16-9-2007, the lease in respect of T.S.No.120 will commence from 1-10-2007 and ends by 30-9-2010. As most of the lease period is almost all over and also in view of the fact that the petitioner spent considerable amount for filling up the deep tank, it is just and proper for the respondents to permit the petitioner to take lease in respect of remaining 1600 Sq.Yds. by collecting necessary annual rent as per the auction notification dt.16-9-2007. Further it is stated that it is not proper on the part of the respondents to proceed with the leasing out the lands in respect of remaining 1600 Sq.Yds. during the current lease period and also without disposing of petitioner’s representation submitted to the respondents. As stated supra, the petitioner had spent considerable amount for filling up the deep tank and he had been doing business in the lands lease out to him from 1-10-2007. Hence, the petitioner has a legal right to ask for leasing of the remaining 1600 Sq.Yds. as well in T.S.No.120 of Rajahmundry. The impugned auction of the respondents to conduct auction on 6-4-2009 is not justified in any view of the matter and the interest of the 2nd respondent wil be safeguarded if the remaining lands in T.S.No.120 are leased out to the petitioner as per the rent fixed earlier. It is stated that the respondents are also not sure of the extent of the lands leased out in the auction mentioned above as they have stated in column No.2 as 2000 Sq.Yds. approximately. Hence, in this view also, the action of the respondents to conduct auction in respect of remaining 1600 Sq.Yds. is not justified. 8. In the counter affidavits filed in support of the vacate applications, specific stand had been taken that the petitioner was given specific extent and relating to the rest of the extent, the petitioner cannot claim any right whatsoever. 9. In the reply affidavit filed, again several details had been reiterated and specific stand had been taken that the petitioner is entitled to get back the amount spend by him for leveling 1600 Sq.Yds. of land and the respondents in the writ petition are under an obligation to pay the same. 10. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the present property, which had been put to auction, in which one Sunanda became successful bidder, is different from the property relating to which the petitioner became successful bidder previously. When that being so, it is needless to say that merely because he proceeding with certain works like filling up unauthorisedly, that would not annul to his benefit and he cannot claim any legal right whatsoever. 11. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 7th August, 2009 smr