N NAGESWARA RAO Vs. U O I REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Class-4 employee of the Railways, was granted permission for cultivation of Railway lands under Grow More Food Scheme for the year 1994-95. According to the petitioner, though the licence was granted in the year January, 1996, but the possession of the same was given in January, 1998. The same was not fit for immediate cultivation. The petitioner after spending huge amounts started cultivation in the year 1998. While so, the respondents by order dated 20-2-1996 have insisted upon for payment of revised licence fees said to have been revised from 1-4-1995. The petitioner made representations on 23-10-1997 and also on 2-11-1998 but still the authorities insisted for the payment of revised rates of licence fees with effect from 1-4-1995. As the petitioner left with no other alternative paid the revised license fees for the years 1995-1996. 1996-1997. 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 under protest pending disposal of the representations dt. 23-10-1997 and 2-11-1998. All of a sudden, the authorities are not permitting the petitioner to cultivate the lands though the licence fees was collected even for the year 2000. The petitioner is willing to pay the licence fee for the year 2001 also. But there is no response from the authorities. Hence he filed the present writ petition.

(2.) 'In response' to the notice, the respondents filed a counter along with the Vacate Stay Petition stating that in pursuance of guidelines and circulars issued by the Railway Board the land belonging to the Railway has been allotted for cultivation under the Scheme Grow More Food. Though the licence was given in the year 1995-96 but the same was not renewed for the subsequent year. On expiry of licence period from 1998 onwards, the petitioner cannot claim any cultivation rights. Further, as the petitioner has not paid the licence fee as per letter dated 20-2-1996 he became the defaulter. Once the scheme is not in operation since 1998, the petitioner cannot continue to cultivate the land. The Railway Board by its letter dated 9-3-1999 issued instructions to take back possession of land for afforestation and not to allow the cultivation. The petitioner filed a representation stating that in other areas, namely Samarlakot. Bheemavaram. Tuni, Kakinada, Tenali, Repalle, and Guntur under the Vijaywada Division the respondents are permitting to run the Railway lands. Therefore the petitioner is also entitled to renewal of the licence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same contentions raised in the writ affidavit and stated that once the authorities allotted the land for cultivation under the scheme and the petitioner is willing to pay the licence fee, the authorities cannot stop cultivation of the lands and they are estopped from withdrawing the scheme. I am not persuaded to contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason the lands were allotted under at specified scheme Grow More Food and the scheme was not extended after 1998 in the absence of any statutory right vested on the petitioner for cultivation of the land the petitioner cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court for renewal of the licenses. The Railway Board itself took a decision not to renew the license and use of the lands of the railways for afforestation after 1998. The petitioner cannot insist that he is entitled to renew the licence for the cultivation of land.