WP/11646/2010 of Chintala Udaya Shankar, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry, on 30 December 2010

COMMON ORDER:

The subject matter and the relief sought for in these writ petitionsare similar in nature therefore, these writ petitions are disposing of bythis common order.

This batch of writ petitions have been filed seeking for issuanceo f Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in notconsidering the collective representation dated 30.03.2010 and theirindividual representations vide different dates for renewal of lease inrespect of their plots situated at Timber Yard, Aryapuram, Rajahundry,East Godavary District for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 byenhancing the lease amount by 33.1/3% as done in the previousyears, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct therespondent not to evict the petitioners from their respective plots.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are running theirbusiness for the last 60 years and the then Rajahmundry Municipalityhas granted lease for running their business and renewing the same,from time to time. The lease amount has to be enhanced by 33% bythe respondent Corporation for every three years and the same wasbeing enhanced. For the lease period 2007-2010, the lease amount was enhanced from Rs.15,833/- to While things stood thus, the respondent Corporation issued anotice dated 06.01.2007 asking the petitioners to pay the lease amountby enhancing 50% and the lease period was renewed by three yearsfrom 31.03.2007. Thereafter, notice dated 19.03.2008 was issued bythe respondent Corporation directing the petitioners to vacate theirrespective plots, within a period of ten days, failing which, thepossession will be taken forcibly. Questioning the said notice, thepetitioners have filed W.P. No.7034 of 2008 and initially whileadmitting the same, directed to maintain statusquo subject to depositof enhanced leased amount and eventually, the said writ petition wasallowed vide order dated 06.11.2009 setting aside the noticeimpugned in the said writ petition.

The Saw Mill and Depot Owners Association made a collectiverepresentation dated 30.03.2010 and the petitioners also maderepresentations individually in different dates to the respondentCorporation with a request to renew the lease period from 01.04.2010to 31.03.2013 by enhancing the lease amount by 33.13% by payingenhanced lease amount for the year 2010-2011. Since the respondentCorporation did not consider their representations and pass any ordersrenewing the lease as done earlier, the petitioners have filed thepresent writ petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though theland belongs to the respondent Corporation, the petitioners are inpossession and running their business for the last 60 years underlease agreement as lessees. As per the lease agreement, the petitioners have to pay lease amount by enhancing 33% for everythree years. Accordingly, the petitioners are paying and therespondent Corporation renewing the same. But, for the reasons bestknown 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 thatwas encashed by the authorities, no orders have been passedrenewing their lease period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013.

It is also submitted that on earlier occasion, the respondentauthorities have issued notice to the petitioners to vacate theirpremises but on filing a writ petition before this Court that notice wasset aside. Therefore, the petitioners are now under threat that theymay be vacated forcibly.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondentsubmits that it is true that the petitioners are lessees over the plotsbelonging to the respondent Corporation wherein the petitioners areconducting their timber and saw mill businesses. Since therespondent Corporation is planning to construct houses for thehouseless poor persons, the said land is required for the publicpurpose. Since the lease period is expired by 30.03.2010, thepetitioners have no right to continue over the land belongs to therespondent Corporation. He disputed about encashment of leaseamount stated to have been sent by the petitioners enclosing with theirrepresentations and it needs verification.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused thematerial on record.

The main grievance of the petitioners is that though they areconducting their business for the last sixty years by paying leaseamount and for term period of three years from 01.04.2010 to31.03.2013 and for the year 2010-2011 they have paid enhancedlease amount that was enchased but the respondent authorities havenot considered their representations and passed any orders renewingtheir 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 andconducting their business and their lease period is renewing from timeto time. It is also not in dispute that earlier the respondent authoritieshave issued notice directing the petitioners to vacate their premisesbut by filing writ petition initially obtained interim direction andeventually that notice was set aside. Now the petitioners are underthreat that they may be vacated forcibly.

The learned standing counsel submitted that the land is required forconstructing houses to the houseless poor, if that is so, the respondent authorities have to follow the procedure but withoutfollowing the procedure, in accordance with law, the respondent authorities cannot ask the petitioners to vacate thepremises.

Coming to the aspect of renewal, it is categorical submission ofthe petitioners that they have made collective representation throughtheir Association dated 30.03.2010 besides individual representationsrequesting the authorities to renew their lease period from 01.04.2010to 31.03.2013. It is also submitted that along with their representationsthey have also paid enhanced lease amount for the year 2010-2011but the learned standing counsel admits the same subject toverification. It is clear from the above that the petitioners have madetheir collective representation about nine months back but therespondent authorities did not pass any orders on theirrepresentations. Therefore, it is appropriate to dispose of these writpetitions directing the respondent authorities to consider theirrepresentations and pass appropriate orders.

Conclusion

Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase 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 thepetitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo, as on today, with regard to possession of the plots, shall bemaintained.

With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Date: 30.12.2010LSK

_________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH