G.Suresh, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Appeal No.463 of 2018 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27830 of 2016 dated 12.02.2018. The appellants herein filed W.P.No.27830 of 2016 questioning the notification dated 09.08.2016, contemplating conducting of an auction in respect of 14 vacant sites belonging to the 4th respondent-Choultry on 29.08.2016, as illegal and arbitrary.

An interim order was passed, in the Writ Petition, directing the respondents not to finalise the auction. The table, filed along with the counter-affidavit, discloses that, as against the previous rent being paid for all the 10 shops together i.e for Rs.8,450/-, the highest bids received in the auction, for all the 10 shops together, was Rs.1,95,500/-.

In the order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge observed that the mere fact that the Rules confer a discretion on the Commissioner to renew the lease at an enhanced rent, did not obligate him to renew the lease; it was always open to him to put the subject shops to auction; and, since the table in the counter-affidavit disclosed that the 4th respondent would get a far higher amount as lease rent than what was being paid by the appellants-writ petitioners, there was no justification in interfering with the action of the respondents in putting these lands to public auction. While disposing of the writ petition, the Learned Single Judge observed that, since the 4th respondent was deprived of the amounts

due to them, in view of the interim order passed by this Court earlier, they were entitled to recover the differential amount from the appellants-writ petitioners at whose request the interim order came to be passed.

Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, would submit that the appellants-writ petitioners cannot be deprived of their possession over the subject lands except in accordance with law; an artificially high bid was submitted in the public auction only to have the appellants-writ petitioners evicted therefrom; no viable business can be carried on in the subject premises, on such huge amounts being paid as lease rent; and the appellants-writ petitioners are all petty businessmen who are carrying on business in the shops which have been constructed on the subject land.

On the other hand Smt. K.Lalitha, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, would submit that the highest bidders in the auction are even now ready to take the subject shops on lease, on payment of the lease rent mentioned in the table in the counteraffidavit; the very fact that lease rents, nearly 20 times higher than what was being paid earlier, would now be received by the 4th respondent, pursuant to the public auction, would show that the 4th respondent has all along been deprived of their legitimate revenues; and the appellants-writ petitioners, who were admittedly granted leases of the shops by the 4th respondent, cannot be heard to contend that they should be permitted to retain possession of the subject shops in perpetuity, and for all times to come. Lease of shops, belonging to the charitable endowments, are governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Right (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 notified in G.O.Ms.No.426 dated 09.11.2015. The said Rules prescribe the procedure for grant of leases of immovable property belonging to the charitable institutions. The mode prescribed therein is by way of public auction. The impugned notification was, therefore, issued inviting bids for grant of leasehold rights of these vacant plots. The appellantswrit petitioners were granted lease of the subject lands, in the year 2013, for a period of three years.

Their three year lease period expired in 2016 and, on expiry of the lease, they were required to vacate the premises, and hand over peaceful possession thereof, subject to their right to participate in the public auction, and to continue to occupy the shops on their bids being declared the highest in the auction, and on lease agreements being executed thereafter in their favour by the authorities concerned. In case, the highest amount fetched in the auction is not on their bids, but those of others, the existing lessees were obligated to peacefully vacate and hand over possession of the shops to the 4th respondent to enable them, in turn, to hand over possession of the subject premises to the highest bidders in the auction, after executing lease deeds in their favour.

Having retained possession of the subject shops, even after expiry of the lease period, the appellants-writ petitioners cannot now seek this Court's protection to remain in illegal occupation of the subject lands, even after expiry of the lease period. We find no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order under appeal. In the light of the submission made by Sri V.S.K.

bid, quoted in the auction is illusory, it is unlikely that the highest bidder would now come and take the subject shops on lease, and execute lease deed on payment of such abnormally high rent, suffice it to make it clear that the 4th respondent shall be entitled to recover the differential rent, in terms of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, only after the highest bidders in the auction pay the aforesaid bid amounts, and lease deeds are executed by the 4th respondent in their favour.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) ____________________________ (KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J) 19th March, 2018 JSU

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Appeal No.463 of 2018 Date: 19.03.2018 JSU