ORDER : A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. The petitioners claim to be lessees of the sites of canal bunds situated within the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation limits. When the rents were sought to be enhanced, WP No. 171 of 1971 and WP No. 6477 of 1979 were filed. When the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 181, Irrigation Department dated 24.5.1985 enhancing the rent retrospectively with effect from 1.5.1983, the petitioners filed WP No. 6802 of 1986 and this Court quashed the said G.O. so far as retrospective portion was concerned. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 508, dated 20.10.1995 and a Memo No. 1340 AA/LAQ/97 dated 3.3.1997, instructing the concerned to send proposals for selling of the lands which are not necessary. In pursuance of the G.O. the lessees made representations to the Superintending Engineer (A/c), Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada, expressing their willingness to purchase the said lands which are in their possession for the last six decades. Based on the said representation, the Superintending Engineer sent proposals on 19.9.1997 to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, stating that the Irrigation Department has no objection to sell the said lands. The market rate was also obtained from the District Collector and after receipt of the report from the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District, a report was sent to the Chief Engineer, Major Irrigation, Errammanzil Colony, Hyderabad, recommending the market value at the rate of Rs. 3,600/- per square yard. The petitioners took permission for construction of sheds in the lands from the Bezawada Municipality in the year 1941 and doing business of Cuddapah Slabs engaging nearly 500 labour. They have been paying rents to the Irrigation Department well in advance every year. While so, on 28.7.2003 the employees of the first respondent came to the site and demolished the structures without issuing any notice. They orally informed the petitioners to vacate the premises within 24 hours. Challenging their action, the present writ petition was filed. 2. After filing of the writ petition, respondents 2, 3 and 4 were impleaded. Pending writ petition, petitioners 1 and 3 died and their legal representatives came on record. 3. They orally informed the petitioners to vacate the premises within 24 hours. Challenging their action, the present writ petition was filed. 2. After filing of the writ petition, respondents 2, 3 and 4 were impleaded. Pending writ petition, petitioners 1 and 3 died and their legal representatives came on record. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Government originally leased out an extent of 959.22 square yards of land situated on left bank of Eluru Canal in NTS No. 618 in favour of Sri B. Bullabbai, Proprietor M/s. Kanakadurga Slab Company, Vijayawada, for a period of 5 years from 1.4.1961 to 31.3.1966 vide G.O. Ms. No. 1683 PW, dated 31.7.1964, and the lease agreement was concluded in the Divisional Officer Letter No. 2522 M dated 12.7.1965. After 31.3.1966, there was no renewal of lease. In August 1984 the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, has occupied a portion of the land for formation of road to connect the new road bridge across Eluru Canal leaving a balance of 681.78 square yards. As per agreement condition No. 3, the grantee shall not transfer to any other person the leasehold rights without previous sanction of authority which was made in the grant and hence it was stated that the first petitioner has no right on leased land, as no lease agreement was entered with him. In respect of the 2nd petitioner also the original lessee was one K. Rama Krishna and the 2nd petitioner is his son. An extent of 1200 square yards, which was subsequently reduced to 1095 square yards in NTS No. 618 of Vijayawada on left bank of Eluru Canal, was leased out to Sri K. Rama Krishna from 1.4.1961 to 31.3.1966. As per G.O. Ms. No. 2157, dated 31.12.1970 the lease was renewed for another 10 years in favour of the above individual from 1.4.1966 to 31.3.1976 and after 31.3.1976 there was no renewal. So far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, he was in possession of an extent of 930 square yards from 1959 and established Dhanalakshmi Slabs Company, Vijayawada, and the lease expired on 31.3.1966. Thereafter, there was no renewal of lease. The proposal of sale of land on the basis of market value was also admitted. The petitioners have been remitting the lease amounts voluntarily through challan upto the year 2000. The occupation of the petitioners after expiry of lease period is illegal. Thereafter, there was no renewal of lease. The proposal of sale of land on the basis of market value was also admitted. The petitioners have been remitting the lease amounts voluntarily through challan upto the year 2000. The occupation of the petitioners after expiry of lease period is illegal. Several notices were issued to vacate the site. The last one was served vide Lr. No. CB/Mc.1807-M, dated 9.12.2001. Thereafter during July 2003 the slab companies have been demolished by the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, as they were found to be causing traffic problem. The Government also issued G.O. Ms. No. 101 dated 3.6.2005, not to extend lease after its expiry period. 4. The 4th respondent, District Collector, Krishna District, also filed a separate counter-affidavit stating that the land covered by the writ petition belongs to the Irrigation Department and it is not vested with the Revenue Department. 5. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that as per Section 37 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 read with Section 8 of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, all lands belonging to Government situated in Municipality shall vest with the Municipality only. Thus, the property under question which is also a Government land shall vest with Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. After 1966 the lease was not renewed and the petitioners have no right to continue in possession of the land. In the meeting held with the District Collector along with officers of the Municipal Corporation, R&B, Irrigation and Police Department it was decided to remove the encroachments and the removal of encroachments was entrusted to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, action was taken, as the petitioners were continuing without any legal right on the site for the benefit of public at large. 6. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit stating that they are in actual physical possession of the lands in N.T.S. 618, Purnanandampeta, Vijayawada, on the Left Bank of Eluru Canal and doing business of Kadapa Slabs. The Irrigation Department, who was the actual owner of the land, issued eviction notice and the 2nd petitioner submitted his explanation. In spite of submission of explanation, no action was taken for eviction. This Court in WA No. 2021 of 2001 dated 4.1.2002 gave liberty to pass final orders after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners. Till today, no orders were passed by the Irrigation Department. 7. In spite of submission of explanation, no action was taken for eviction. This Court in WA No. 2021 of 2001 dated 4.1.2002 gave liberty to pass final orders after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners. Till today, no orders were passed by the Irrigation Department. 7. It is clear from the facts stated above that the petitioners were the lessees of the Irrigation Department and their leases expired on 31.3.1966 and 31.3.1966 respectively. At one point of time the Irrigation Department thought of selling the land. But the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation, did not accept the proposal to sell the land. When the Irrigation Department issued a notice dated 7.12.2001 seeking eviction of the petitioners, the petitioners filed WP No. 26053 of 2001 and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that it was premature and when WA No. 2021 of 2001 was filed, the Division Bench of this Court observed that since the appellant has already submitted his written objections to the notice dated 7.12.2001, liberty was given to the respondents to consider and dispose of the same in a manner known to law after affording opportunity to the petitioner or his representative or his authorized officer. Those proceedings were taken by the 2nd petitioner. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the action of the first respondent is not proper and respondents 2 and 3 are competent authorities to take any action for eviction of the petitioners. The decision of the Municipal Corporation taken in a joint meeting held with the District Collector and R&B Department does not clothe with the first respondent with any authority to evict or interfere with the possession of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action in accordance with law if he wants to evict the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.