Dismissed

B. Kameswara Rao v. The District Collector

Telangana HC28 Aug 2012WA/1043/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order dismissing a writ petition where tenants sought to continue possession of government shops by offering minimal ground rent instead of market rates. The appellants claimed ownership via Janmabhoomi programme contributions. The High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge.

B. Kameswara Rao Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.1043 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 28-08-2012.

¶4

Between: B.KAMESWARA RAO AND OTHERS .. APPELLANTS

¶5

AND

¶6

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS

¶7

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1043 OF 2012

¶9

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶10

This writ appeal is directed against an order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge on 20-07-2012 in W.P.No.8185 of 2012, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in letter No.14 of 2012 dated 24.2.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent proposing to conduct auction and also demanding arrears in respect of shops in the occupation of the petitioners bearing Shop Nos.18-62, 18-60, 18-61, 18-59, 18-58, 18-57, 18-56, 18-55, 18-53, 18-54, 18-52, 18-50, 18-51 and 18-49 without considering the directions of this Hon’ble Court dated 21.09.2010 in W.P.No.1290 of 2004 in its letter and spirit, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the proceedings issued in letter No.14/2012 dated 24.2.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶11

The facts of this case are that the petitioners were doing petty business on the road margins, but were evicted for the purpose of road widening and were allotted shops in the two shopping complexes constructed, one opposite to RTC complex and another opposite to petrol bunk in Chodavaram. The Gram Panchayat was governed by the provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act of 1994. It is the case of the petitioners that the said complexes were constructed under Janmabhoomi programme and the government invested 70% of funds, whereas 30% of funds and labour was undertaken by the beneficiaries i.e., the petitioners, who were tenants in the aforesaid complexes. It is further the case of the petitioners that in view of

¶12

their contribution and further improvements made to the shops, which are in their occupation, they became owners of the shops, and therefore, they are not liable to pay rents at the market rate to the Gram Panchayat.

¶13

Earlier, when there was demand for payment of arrears of rent and when eviction notices were issued, same were challenged before this Court by the association of tenants, which is registered in the name of “Sri Vinayaka Janmabhumi Punaravasa Shop Yajamanula Samkshema Sangam” and also the individual tenants, in W.P.No.1290 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 21^st September, 2010. In the aforesaid writ petition, in view of the plea of the petitioners that they have contributed 30% for construction of shopping complexes, this court directed the District Collector to inquire into the whole issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to the liability of the petitioners, if any, for payment of rents for the shops in their occupation and this court also permitted the petitioners to submit their objections/ representations before the District Collector within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Purusant to and in terms of the said order the District Collector enquired into the matter. The tenants filed their objections for consideration of the issue and subsequent thereto the District Collector passed an order in the matter.

¶14

Challenging the said order, W.P.No.8185 of 2012 was filed. It was contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the petitioners should be allowed to continue in possession by offering ground rent. The Hon’ble single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding that as the petitioners are existing tenants, they are given choice to continue in possession by offering the rents matching with the highest bidders, even as per the orders passed by the Collector, but at the same time, they cannot squat on the property by paying meager rent of Rs.310/-. It was further made clear that if the petitioners come forward by offering rents and other deposits matching with the offers made by the highest bidders, that order will not preclude the respondents from considering their cases for grant of leases with usual terms and conditions.

¶15

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this writ appeal has

¶16

been filed by the writ petitioners/appellants.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, after considering the facts of the case and the material placed before us, we do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge. On the contrary, it appears to us that the order was passed by the Collector in the matter, after making proper enquiry into the matter and after giving a chance of being heard to the writ petitioners.

¶18

We do not find that there is any merit in this writ appeal. We affirm the order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶19

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶20

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶21

J )

¶22

Dt: 28-08-2012. TNB

B. Kameswara Rao v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Kameswara Rao v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Forum for a Better Hyderabad,rep.byi ts Secretary Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

G. Bala Raju, Vs The Government of A.P.

The Secretary Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Childrens Park Vs The District Collector

Ranikreddy Mahalaksmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District at

Sri Koripella Sai Lashmana Rao, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District