HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.25901 of 2009
Date: July 24, 2014
Between:
Rotary Club of Vijayawada, R.I. Dist. 3020, rep. by its President Ch. Vazeer. … Petitioner And
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary-I & CAD, Hyderabad & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.25901 of 2009
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. Rotary Club, Vijayawada, is the petitioner. The petitioner prays for Mandamus directing the first respondent to renew the lease after expiry in G.O.Ms.No.740 dated 27.06.1975. Though the prayer is one for Mandamus to renew the very lease, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing has limited the request to dispose of the representation pending with the respondents for consideration of renewal of lease. Having regard to the limited request the facts relevant for the said purpose are adverted to.
3. Through G.O.Ms.No.2458 dated 02.11.1966, the first respondent granted lease of an extent of 2500 square yards to the petitioner club in NTS No.627-A on R.B. of Eluru canal of Vijayawada. Initially, the lease was for a period of five years. Through G.O.Ms.No.740 dated 27.06.1975, the lease in favour of petitioner has been extended for a further period of ten years from 1971 and accordingly the lease expired by 1981. The fact of the matter is the petitioner has been continuing at the leased premises by complying with the agreed terms and conditions between the petitioner and respondents. The petitioner requested for extension or renewal of lease for a further period. The same has been taken up for consideration by the CCLA in Ref.No.B2/2758/2007. Through letter dated 19.06.2008, the office of CCLA has requested the 3rd respondent to send specific recommendation in the light of G.O.Ms.No.101, I & CAD (PWLA-I) Department, dated 20.06.2005. The 3rd respondent has called upon the Sub- Collector, Vijayawada as well as Engineer-in-Chief (3rd respondent) to send a report on the status of petitioner organization vis-à-vis G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 20.06.2005. It is matter of record that the 2nd respondent through letter dated 18.03.2008, while adverting to the ground reality and the activities undertaken by the petitioner, made recommendation as follows:
“In view of the above, as the Rotary Club is a service organization whose activities are mainly social service oriented, as the Superintending Engineer/Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada, recommended for further lease, it is to request the Government to reconsider for further lease to extent of 1725 sq. yards in the NTS No.627 A on the R.B. Eluru Canal in Vijayawada to Rotary Club of Vijayawada for 25 years duly regularizing previous period as shown above and as suggested by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada and duly relaxing the G.O.Ms.No.101 dt:3.6.2005, with usual terms and conditions.”
4. It is the case of petitioner that a final decision has to be taken by the first respondent having regard to the possession of petitioner right from 1956, services the petitioner provides in various fields, including providing education to poor, health, drinking water etc., and before a decision could be taken, the petitioner has come to know that the respondents are contemplating to create third party rights in favour of individuals.
5. This Court, through order dated 27.11.2009, directed maintenance of status quo and the same is in force as on date. At the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader on the strength of written instructions submits that the lease in favour of petitioner expired as early as in 1981 and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 20.06.2005, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. Had it been a case where a final decision has been taken by the first respondent, the instructions received from the office of 4th respondent could have been considered by this Court. But in the case on hand, the 2nd respondent through letter dated 18.03.2008 made positive recommendation for consideration of petitioner case by giving relaxation to G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 20.06.2005.
6. In view of the fact that petitioner is undertaking and discharging various social welfare activities, I consider it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the case of petitioner in the light of the recommendations dated 18.03.2008 for renewal of lease of petitioner for a period as requested by the petitioner and till a decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner, alternatively the settled possession of petitioner shall not be disturbed even if the respondents intend to take possession from the petitioner and such action shall be in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is accordingly ordered.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
S.V. BHATT, J Date: July 24, 2014.
BSB HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION No.25901 of 2009
Date: July 24, 2014
BSB