Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 877 (AP)

P. T. Gopala Chari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-07-30

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2024
ORDER : Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. 1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus as declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 passed in G.O.Rt.No.286, Water Resources (CE’s Establishment) Department, dated 09.08.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the order passed in W.P.No.2384 of 2008, dated 17.04.2008 and para 172 of the Public Works Department Code and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to fix reasonable rent on the basis of the initial rent fixed and pass such order or orders...” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner herein is a registered firm under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and the said firm was appointed as a dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 22.11.1995, the area was leased out in favour of the petitioner firm for a period of five years with effect from 22.12.1995 at an annual rent of Rs.4,500/-. In pursuance of the lease, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Respondent No.3 herein on 22.12.1995 and spent a huge amount to make the area fit for the establishment of the retail outlet. After the expiry of the lease period, Respondent No.3 herein issued proceedings renewing the lease vide proceedings dated 26.12.2000 for a further period of five years i.e., upto 21.12.2005. The petitioner was regularly paying the rents to the department as fixed in the agreement. 4. After expiry of the period, the petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No.3 on 16.12.2005 seeking renewal of lease for a further period of five years with reference to the terms of the G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 22.11.1995. Then, Respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 14.02.2006 to the petitioner stating that the O/o. Accountant General raised an objection for renewal of the lease period by the Executive Engineer and for further extension, orders have to be obtained from the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted another application/representation to Respondent No.1 on 01.03.2006 requesting for renewal of the lease. Pursuant to the said request, the petitioner was issued notice dated 25.06.2006 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,95,428/- towards rent as per terms and conditions of the agreement along with renewal for further lease period beyond 21.12.2005. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted another application/representation to Respondent No.1 on 01.03.2006 requesting for renewal of the lease. Pursuant to the said request, the petitioner was issued notice dated 25.06.2006 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,95,428/- towards rent as per terms and conditions of the agreement along with renewal for further lease period beyond 21.12.2005. 5. Then, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to Respondent No.3 on 26.06.2006 and also to the Government on 05.08.2006 seeking fixation of reasonable lease amount and the amount demanded by the Executive Engineer is nearly 85 times higher than the lease amount fixed by the Government. Later, Respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 13.12.2006 directing the petitioner to pay the amount by 25.01.2007 and in default, the petitioner has to vacate and hand over the premises. 6. Aggrieved by the proceedings of Respondent No.3, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2384 of 2008 before this Court challenging the action of Respondent No.3 in demanding arrears out of enhancement of lease amount Rs.10,95,428/- retrospectively from the year 2000 onwards as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court and directed the Respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease subject to such terms and conditions as are permissible under law. Till the disposal of the petitioner’s application for renewal, the Respondents shall not interfere with the business of running an outlet by the petitioner on the site in question, subject to the petitioner continuing to pay the pre-existing lease amount. 7. It is further stated that even though this Court on 17.04.2008 directed the Respondents for disposal of the application of the petitioner for renewal of the lease, the Respondents neither disposed of the renewal application of the petitioner nor granted any renewal and kept quiet for a period of more than 10 years. Finally, a notice was issued on 16.09.2019 demanding for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been continued in the subject site without any valid lease approval and did not pay any lease amount since 2005 till date, for which the petitioner submitted the explanation on 19.09.2019 and the same is pending for consideration by the Respondents. 8. 8. While things stood thus, when Respondent No.1 issued the present impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.286, dated 09.08.2021 fixing the lease amount and directing the Respondents to collect the lease amount of Rs.2,23,08,896/-. Pursuant to which, Respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 19.08.2021 wherein it is stated that the total lease amount for the period from 22.12.2000 to 30.09.2021 is Rs.2,23,08,896/-. An amount of Rs.1,99,000/- has been paid by the petitioner and after adjustment, the balance amount due for payment by the petitioner is Rs.2,21,09,896/- for the period upto 30.09.2021. The said proceedings were assailed in the present writ petition. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development filed vacate Stay petition/counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.3 / the Executive Engineer wherein it is stated that the site is located at Mini bye-pass road which is a busy commercial area and has high market value Initially, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 22.11.1995 granting lease of the subject land in favour of petitioner for a period of five years for establishment of Petrol Bunk on payment of lease rent of Rs 4,500/- per annum. Accordingly, the firm established the petrol bunk and started functioning. After expiry of the said lease period and based on the representation of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Nellore Central Division, Nellore, though not competent, issued proceedings renewing the lease for another five years with effect from 22.12.2000 to 21.12.2005 to the petitioner at the same rate, i.e., Rs.4,500/- per annum. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner on the one hand accepted the illegal extension of the lease period by the Executive Engineer and on the other hand, when the Audit Department has pointed out that the Executive Engineer has no competency and rent continued is very low, the petitioner has questioned the same alleging that the Executive Engineer is not competent and Government alone is competent. The petitioner is approbating and reprobating the same simultaneously as per his convenience, which is not permissible under any law. The fact remains that the petitioner continuing over the land without lease approval orders since 2000. 10. Meanwhile, the Government has issued a Memo No. 6957/LAI(A1)/2006-8, dated 01.03.2008 giving instructions to Engineer-in- Chief, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti to take over the land in question. The fact remains that the petitioner continuing over the land without lease approval orders since 2000. 10. Meanwhile, the Government has issued a Memo No. 6957/LAI(A1)/2006-8, dated 01.03.2008 giving instructions to Engineer-in- Chief, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti to take over the land in question. As per the instructions of the Superior officers, the Executive Engineer, Central Division, Nellore, issued proceedings dated 04.03.2008, wherein the firm was directed to vacate the premises on the ground of non-renewal of the license / lease and in default payment of enhanced lease amount, as pointed out by the Audit authorities and also as directed by the Executive Engineer. 11. It is further stated that based on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2384 of 2008, dated 17.04.2008, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.286, Water Resources (CE’s Establishment) Department, dated 09.08.2021. The process adopted for fixing Lease Rental for the year was 10% of market value for every block period of five years starting from the year 2000 to 2021 and renewed the lease up to the 30.09.2021 and further instructed to the Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Tirupati to take necessary action to collect the balance lease amount. The said land is urgently needed to the Department for construction of retaining walls on either side of Sarvepalli Canal in Nellore City limits. All the adjacent occupiers are vacating the premises without causing any hindrance to ongoing work. 12. It is further stated that the petitioner had been in possession of Irrigation Land located on Sarvepalli canal bank since more than 25 years without even paying nominal rent under the guise of Court orders and he is now served a notice to pay a revised lease rental amount which were passed as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court. The subject land is very costly one and located in a highly commercial area and if leased out in public auction, it will fetch minimum of Rs.2 lakhs per month and its basic value is Rs.2.16 crores and the actual market value will be more than that. Moreover the said land is necessary for the modernization of the Sarvepalli canal. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issuance of G.O.Rt.No.286, dated 09.08.2021 is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Para 172 of the AP Public Works Department code. Moreover the said land is necessary for the modernization of the Sarvepalli canal. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issuance of G.O.Rt.No.286, dated 09.08.2021 is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Para 172 of the AP Public Works Department code. He further submits that without determining the lease amount in proper way by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without any prior notice, Respondents issued the impugned G.O. demanding an amount of Rs.2,21,09,896/- on the guise of petitioner is in occupation of the subject property without valid approval. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Having kept quiet for all these years, straight away demanding that much of amount on the ground of arrears of rent in all these 11 years of period on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assignment.I) Department, dated 14.09.2012 is contrary to the due procedure and also contrary to the terms of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. 15. As per the terms of Government Land Allotment Policy vide G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, Clause 3(h)(d) states that “the lease rental will be 10% of the prevailing market value as fixed by the competent authority. The lease rental shall be enhanced in every block of five years by increasing upto 10% as fixed by the competent authority on the lease rental of the previous block of five years”. Therefore, the petitioner was fixed market value of the leased property in the year 1995 is Rs.5/- per Sq. Feet and a lease amount of Rs.4,500/- was fixed for the block period 1995-2000. Therefore, the said clause may be applicable for the market value as fixed in the year 1995 and the petitioner is liable to be paid for the block period 2020- 2025 at the rate of Rs.7,499/- rent per annum. Therefore, the present proceedings issued by way of G.O.Rt.No.286, dated 09.08.2021 and consequential notice of Respondent No.3, dated 19.08.2021 are contrary to the G.o.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 and liable to be dismissed. 16. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development submits that G.O.Ms.No.571 was issued on 14.09.2012. Therefore, the market value fixed in the year 1995 is not at all applicable, for the sole reason, after the passing of decades. The subject Government property has become the most valuable commercial property. 16. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development submits that G.O.Ms.No.571 was issued on 14.09.2012. Therefore, the market value fixed in the year 1995 is not at all applicable, for the sole reason, after the passing of decades. The subject Government property has become the most valuable commercial property. Therefore, the market value fixed in the year 1995 cannot be a basis for calculation, since the terms of the G.O.Rt.No.571 came into effect from 14.09.2012 only. She further submits that after the orders of this Court, the petitioner neither paid the existing lease amount nor paid the demanded amount and continued his illegal occupation on the guise of renewal application was not disposed of by the Respondents. 17. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development further submits that in this writ petition, this Court on 27.08.2021 directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the demanded amount within six weeks and further subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent for use and occupation of the site in question with effect from 01.10.2021. However, the petitioner not complied the orders of this Court and continued his illegal occupation by disobeying the orders of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief more particularly as prayed in the writ petition. 18. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development further submits that the petitioner neither complied with the orders of this Court nor handed over the possession of the property to the Respondents since it is a public property and not paid any amount towards rent from the year 2000 to till date is nothing but playing fraud upon the Court and also to the public exchequer. 19. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development, and perused the material placed on record. 20. On perusal of the record, the fact remains that the petitioner was granted leasehold rights in respect of Government poramboke land owned by the Irrigation Department by way of G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 22.11.1995 and fixing the annual rent of Rs.4,500/-. Later the petitioner claimed that the said lease was renowned for the same amount by Respondent No.3 from 22.12.2000 to 21.12.2005. In fact, the Respondent No.3 is not the competent authority for such renewal. Later the petitioner claimed that the said lease was renowned for the same amount by Respondent No.3 from 22.12.2000 to 21.12.2005. In fact, the Respondent No.3 is not the competent authority for such renewal. The petitioner did not submit any renewal application in the year 2000 to the competent Authority i.e. Respondent No.1 herein who initially granted a lease in the year 1995. The petitioner was demanded arrears of rent up to the year 2005 by issuing a notice by Respondent No.3 as directed by Respondent No.1 for an amount of Rs.10,95,428/-. Having aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said notice by way of W.P.No.2384 of 2008, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 17.04.2008 as under: In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 22.01.2008 and the subsequent proceedings dated 04.03.2008 of respondent No.4 are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease subject to such terms and conditions as are permissible under law. Till the disposal of the petitioner's application for renewal, the respondents shall not interfere with the business of running retail outlet by the petitioner on the site in question, subject to the petitioner continuing to pay pre-existing lease amount. The sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the directions of this Court, shall be retained by the respondents subject to the orders to be passed by the Government on the petitioner's renewal application. The said sum shall be adjusted to the lease amount payable by the petitioner in future. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP. Nos.3058, 3059, 6819 of 2008 and WVMP.No. 1019 of 2008 disposed of as infructuous. 21. It seems that the petitioner submitted his application for renewal to the Respondent No.1 on 01.03.2006. The said renewal application of the petitioner was neither granted nor permitted the petitioner for continuation his possession over the subject land. Nos.3058, 3059, 6819 of 2008 and WVMP.No. 1019 of 2008 disposed of as infructuous. 21. It seems that the petitioner submitted his application for renewal to the Respondent No.1 on 01.03.2006. The said renewal application of the petitioner was neither granted nor permitted the petitioner for continuation his possession over the subject land. The fact remains that the petitioner has been continuing his possession without paying admitted rent and without submitting any application or explanation whatsoever for the reminders for renewal of the lease and has been continuing his occupation from the year 2000 to 2021, since the 1st renewal claimed by the petitioner granted by Respondent No.3 is not a valid renewal for continuation of possession. 22. It appears that the petitioner was directed by this Court by way of an interim order dated 27.08.2021 as under: “In the circumstances in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2384 of 2008, dated 17.04.2008, there shall be interim stay of operation of the G.O.Rt.No.286, dated 09.08.2021 subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the demanded amount within six (6) weeks from now and further subject to payment Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month towards rent for use and occupation of the site in question with effect from 01.10.2021 on or before 10th of every month until further orders." 23. But, the petitioner assailed the order by way of W.A.No.571 of 2022 wherein the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Appeal as under: 6. The learned single Judge had directed the appellant to deposit only 1/4th of the demanded amount. 7. We find substance in the argument of the learned Government Pleader and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 8. However, since the respondents had required the appellant to pay the lease amount fixed from the year 2000 and since twenty years have passed in the meantime, we permit the appellant to deposit the amount as directed by the learned single Judge within a period of two (2) months from expiry of the period of 6 (six) weeks as fixed by the learned single Judge. 24. Therefore, it is observed that the Division Bench of this Court is not inclined to interfere, on the other hand, directed the petitioner to comply with the orders of this Court. 24. Therefore, it is observed that the Division Bench of this Court is not inclined to interfere, on the other hand, directed the petitioner to comply with the orders of this Court. But, till date, the petitioner did not deposit any amount as directed by this Court which become final. Therefore, the noncompliance of the orders of this Court by the petitioner which becomes final is nothing but disobedience on the part of the petitioner which speaks volumes of the petitioner and by which the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less as prayed in the writ petition. 25. Having disobeyed the orders of this Court, the petitioner cannot plead that the action of the Respondent enhancing and fixing the rental amount and demanding of Rs.2,21,09,896/- is contrary to the terms of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012 is nothing but the petitioner is resorting for approbate and reprobate of the same. More so, he is acting as per his convenience which cannot be permitted under the law. 26. The fact remains that the petitioner has been continuing possession and enjoying the benefits without paying single paise and without there being any accountability and responsibility with the public exchequer and by violating the orders of this Court for one reason or other. 27. After assessing things as narrated above, the petitioner has been continuing the possession of the property at the cost of the public exchequer without paying a single pie for one reason or another and put forth absurd reasons before this Court. The calculation memo filed along with the reply affidavit since the market value of the land fixed in the year 1995 pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 22.11.1995 would be the market value to be recalled. Even such a calculation memo as per terms of G.O.Ms.571, dated 14.09.2012 and the petitioner is liable to pay the Rent at the rate Rs.7,499/- per annum is nothing but absurdity and trying to play fraud upon the Court and also trying to mislead this Court. 28. Hence, in view of the non-compliance of the interim orders of this Court dated 27.08.2021 and also orders passed in W.A.No.571 of 2021, dated 15.09.2021 the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less as prayed in the writ petition and the entire writ petition is liable to be rejected with costs. 29. 28. Hence, in view of the non-compliance of the interim orders of this Court dated 27.08.2021 and also orders passed in W.A.No.571 of 2021, dated 15.09.2021 the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less as prayed in the writ petition and the entire writ petition is liable to be rejected with costs. 29. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be an order for costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee at Amaravati. 30. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.