MADHAVARAPU VASANTHA KUMAR, E.G. DISTRICT AND OTHERS Vs. E.O., MANTRIPRAGADA VARI CHOULTRY, E.G. DIST. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the paper notification in "Eenadu " Telugu Daily Newspaper dated 08.03.2015 in East Godavari District Edition, proposing to conduct auction from 23.03.2015 to 25.03.2015 at 10.00A.M. of lease hold rights of the 75 shops belonging to the 1st respondent situated at D.No.19-1-87, cinema Road, Kakinada Town, East Godavari District for a period of 3 years, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the same.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent obtained lease of the land admeasuring 1400 sq.yards from the 1st respondent choultry for a period of 70- 90 years for its own purpose. Thereafter, the 4th respondent has offered to let out the same to various persons after constructing the shops and promised to allot the shops to the persons who make the payment of non-refundable deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh. Accordingly, by collecting the amounts from the petitioners and various persons commenced the construction activities of the shops in the year 2005 and has completed in the year 2006. Thereafter, the said shops were allotted to the petitioners under a license deed. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department extended the lease granted in favour of the 4th respondent in respect of 1400 sq.yards vide proceedings dated 18.05.1996. The said lease was extended for further period from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007 through proceedings dated 14.02.2006. It is also submitted that on 21.10.2007, the 1st respondent issued "No Objection " certificate stating that it has leased out the open land admeasuring 1400 sq.yards to the 4th respondent for a period of 70 years and it has no objection to give electricity connection to the buildings constructed by the 4th respondent. The petitioners have been paying the license fee regularly to the 4th respondent till 2011 and thereafter, the same were being remitted to the 1st respondent as on date. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 29.10.2011, recommending the approval of the lease in favour of the sitting tenants on enhanced rent @ 34% over the existing rents and requested the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders. While so, the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.18170 of 2013 questioning the action of the 1st respondent in collecting rents directly from the petitioners basing on the report of the 2nd respondent dated 29.10.2011 and the same is pending. In spite of payment of license fees regularly, the 1st respondent issued eviction notices to the petitioners and the petitioners approached the 1st respondent requesting for extension of lease stating that they are willing to pay the enhanced licence fee upto 30% on the existing licence fee. But the 1st respondent insisted for payment of 50% of the existing licence fee as a condition for withdrawal of the eviction notices. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued a paper notification on 08.03.2015 proposing to conduct auction from 23.03.2015 to 25.03.2015 in respect of the shops which the petitioners are having lease hold rights. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have invested amounts for construction of shops and petitioners are continuing as tenants. The 2nd respondent also issued proceedings dated 29.10.2011 recommending the 3rd respondent to regularise the leases in favour of the petitioners on enhanced rent @ 34% over the existing rents. But the 3rd respondent has not taken any decision. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued impugned auction notice dated 08.03.2015 which is in violation of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Constitutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servant Service Rules, 2000 (for short 'the Rules'). He also contends that even otherwise, the 1st respondent has to invoke Sec. 83 of the Act for eviction of the petitioners and they cannot unilaterally evict the petitioners by issuing eviction notices. In support of his contentions he relied on judgment reported in P.Dilip Babu Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Endowments (Revenue) Department, Hyderabad and another .