Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Cosmopolitan Recreation ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.1010 OF 2022
The Cosmopolitan Recreation Society,
D.No.2-274, Sri Ram Nagar,
Kothapeta Village and Mandal,
East Godavari District,
Represented by its Secretary,
Galidevara Pullaiah Naidu,
S/o Ramakrishna Rao, aged about 50 years,
R/o D.No.7-158, Kothapeta Village and Mandal,
East Godavari District
..Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Roads and Buildings Department,
Secretariat, Vellagapudi,
Guntur District and others
...Respondents
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:15.12.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
1. This writ appeal would call in question the order dated
18.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.3525 of 2021 by the learned single
Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner
questioning the proceedings of respondent No.3 vide Letter
No.333/2645/ATO/TO/2018-21 dated 06.01.2021 cancelling the
permission granted to the petitioner-society on 26.04.2018 for utilizing
the land admeasuring Ac.0.80 cents in R.S.No.640/1B2 of Kothapeta
Village and Mandal, East Godavari District for parking. The writ
petitioner is the appellant before us.
2. The material papers available on record would indicate that vide
Letter No.333/2645/ATO/TO/2018 dated 26.04.2018 the writ petitioner
was permitted to utilize the R & B land for outdoor games, parking
etc., to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in R.S.No.640/1B2 of Kothapeta
Village adjoining to the premises of BC Convention Hall, Kothapeta on
the following conditions:
"(1) The Cosmopolitan Recreation Society, Kothapeta,
shall not claim any legal right on the above (R&B) vacant site.
(2) The Cosmopolitan Recreation Society, Kothapeta,
shall not construct any permanent/temporary structures in the
said land supra of the R&B Department.
(3) The Cosmopolitan Recreation Society, Kothapeta, is
informed that, whenever the (R&B) Department requires the
said site, the society shall vacate the said land immediately not
exceeding seven (07) days time from the date of intimation
given to the society by the R&B Department for developing the
R&B site or any other purpose."
3. Under the impugned proceedings vide Letter No.333/2645/
ATO/TO/2018-21 dated 06.01.2021 it is informed to the petitioner that
as per the representation received from the Assistant Executive
Engineer (R&B) Section, Kothapeta and from the Deputy Executive
Engineer (R&B) Sub-division, Kothapeta, the Government has decided
to safeguard the Government land and requested the petitioner to
handover the site to the Deputy Executive Engineer (R & B) Sub-
division, Kothapeta.
4. It is argued that the permission for utilisation of the land was
granted on certain conditions including the one wherein the official
respondents were entitled to get it vacated whenever the State
required the said site. According to the petitioner, there is nothing in
the impugned proceedings dated 06.01.2021 that the State required
the site for any genuine need, therefore, the order requiring the
petitioner to vacate the subject land is not within the permissible terms
of the letter of utilisation dated 26.04.2018. It is also argued that the
writ petitioner has not been put on notice before issuing impugned
proceedings dated 06.01.2021, therefore, there is violation of principles
of natural justice.
5. In the letter dated 06.01.2021, the petitioner has been informed
that the Government wants to safeguard the Government land,
therefore, it has decided to get the land vacated. Securing its own land
can also be said to be the requirement for which the Government can
get the land vacated. If there is threat of Government land being
encroached, nothing prevents the Government to secure its own land.
Moreover, the letter dated 26.04.2018 permitting the petitioner to
utilize the land is in the shape of a license without payment of any
charges or licensee fee. Therefore, no right is created in favour of the
petitioner to remain in occupation of the land if the authority who
permitted the petitioner does not wish to continue such permission.
6. Learned single Judge has rightly refused to interfere with the
matter.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending
miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. However, the appellant -
writ petitioner is allowed 30 days' time from today to vacate the
subject land.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Ksp
