M.Narayana vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1395 AP

 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

              MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.6962 of 2022

                        PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                            Office
       DATE                                ORDER
No                                                                             Note

1.    22.03.2022 TRR, J
                      The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to
                                                                              Transferred
                direct the respondents not to conduct the auction of          to I/O

folder the leasehold rights in respect of the shops in JRY before correction shopping complex, Palamaneru on the ground that the petitioners are entitled to continue in possession of the subject shops for a period of 25 years. Relying on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6354 of 2009 & G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 31.03.2011, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have entered into an agreement in the year, 2004 on the tender notification issued by the respondents.

Since then, the petitioners are in the possession of the shops and the period of 25 years has not been elapsed as per the above said tender notification. Hence, they are entitled to continue in the subject shops on an enhanced rent @ 331/3 % till the completion of 25 years.

Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel refuted the said submissions and stated that the only stipulation in Rule 12(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968 is that the Commissioner cannot extend the lease period beyond 25 years on the enhanced rent and the Commissioner is having power to go for auction before completion of 25 years. The said provision is extracted as hereunder:- Rule 12(4) Renewal of lease of immovable properties: "The Municipal Council may renew the lease of immovable properties for a period of three years at one time and with the prior sanction of the Government renew the lease for a period exceeding three years and not exceeding twenty five years at a time without conducting public auction."

The other contention raised is that the petitioners entered into an agreement for the first time in the year, 1989 not as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners in 2004. For the proposition that the Municipality can go for public auction even without completion of period of 25 years, he has relied on the judgments in, "J.Singaraiah and others V. Proddutur Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Proddutur, Kadapa District and another," reported in 2011 (6) ALT 790 (S.B.) and "P.S.E Hussain and others V. Commissioner, Municipality Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District," reported in 2003 (5) ALT 83 (S.B.).

The above stated judgments does not say that the Municipal authorities can conduct auction before completion of period of 25 years.

To resolve the issues, counter affidavit is necessary. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both learned counsel, the notice issued in Roc No.620/2014/A1, dated 14.03.2022 is suspended for a period of two (2) weeks. The petitioners shall continue in the possession of the subject shops on paying at the enhanced rent @ 33 1/3 %.

Post after two (2) weeks.

_______ TRR, J EPS