THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1249 of 2010 DATE: 26.06.2014 Between:
Shahid Ahmed, Nalgonda and others.
… Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1249 of 2010 Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) All the writ petitioners were lessees in respect of respective pieces of land. They have come to this Court with this one common writ petition ventilating common grievance, however, in respect of different areas of occupation and claiming the following reliefs:
“To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring action of the respondents in issuing tender notification Proceedings ROC No.A1/434/2009, dt.23.01.2010 (Published in Andhra Jyothi on 24.01.2010) for leasing petitioners’ premises to third parties on lease and declare the proceedings RCO No.A/434/2009, dt.18.01.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and further direct the respondent No.2 to not to evict the petitioners from their respective shops or pass such other order or orders.”
It is clear from the prayer portion that the impugned advertisement was issued for leasing the petitioners’ premises to third parties. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, all these writ petitioners have admitted that they were granted lease initially for a period of 25 years commencing from 1971. So, the lease expired by afflux of time, so to say, in 1996. Thereafter, there is no valid extension of lease. In that context, appropriate measure was taken by the municipal authorities declaring the occupation of the petitioners as unauthorized.
Going by the aforesaid statement and averment, no relief can be granted as the petitioners and each of them admittedly are unauthorized occupants, as such, the respondent - Municipality wanted to take action for eviction and for leasing out in accordance with law.
This Court granted interim relief, as such, everything has been stalled.
We do not find any justification under the law to stay the hands of the respondent – Municipality as the petitioners and each of them have no enforceable right either legally or otherwise for seeking any direction against the respondents as such. We, therefore, direct the municipal authority to issue fresh notice for leasing out the respective premises in accordance with law and it would be open for the petitioners and each of them to participate in such auction for leasing out, if so advised. In this process, if any of them become successful bidders, obviously their possession should not be disturbed. If any of them become unsuccessful, obviously the possession shall be given to the successful person after evicting the petitioners and each of them with due process of law, as is required against unauthorized occupants.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 26.06.2014 va/bnr