Dismissed

Ravi Weighing and Service Station, a registered partnership v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Telangana HC15 Mar 2012WP/29730/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Writ Petition challenging police action to resume government land leased to Indian Oil Corporation, as the underlying disputes regarding lease expiration and possession fall within the private law realm and involve factual disputes requiring adjudication by a Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed without costs, and no immediate action is to be taken by the respondents for ten days.

Ravi Weighing and Service Station, a registered… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.29730 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The proceedings of the third respondent dated 01.11.2011 and the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4, in seeking to forcibly take possession of the land, whereupon the petrol pump of the petitioner is located, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶4

By the impugned memo, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad (third respondent) informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahal Division, Hyderabad (fourth respondent) that the government land belonging to the police department at Goshamahal was let out to the Indian Oil Corporation for running a fuel outlet on lease basis; the lease period expired by 31.03.2011; on review of the proposal for further extension of lease by the Indian Oil Corporation (fifth respondent), the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (second respondent) had informed that the police department did not gain because of the lease agreement; and it was, therefore, resolved to cancel the lease agreement, and to resume the land for departmental use. The fourth respondent was requested to take over possession of the land from the fifth respondent, and report compliance.

¶5

Sri Mahmood Ali, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the impugned memo dated 01.11.2011 was an undisguised attempt to forcibly take possession of the land over which the petitioner’s petrol pump was located; even on the expiry of the lease agreement, the lessee was entitled for a grace period of six months to vacate the premises; in any event, eviction of the petitioner can only be in accordance with law; respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot take law into their hands, and forcibly evict the petitioner from the premises in question; and

¶6

even to file a Civil Suit, the petitioner would require some time.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the respondents would not take any action for a period of ten days from today.

¶8

The disputed questions of fact which arise for consideration in this Writ Petition, i.e. whether or not the petitioner is entitled to continue in the premises in question, and whether they are entitled for extension of lease, are in the private law realm. As the respondents state that no action would be taken against the petitioner for a period of ten days, I see no reason to exercise discretion to entertain this Writ Petition which involves disputed questions of fact, and is in the private law realm. As the appropriate forum, for adjudication of these disputes, is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of a Civil Suit before the competent Civil Court.

¶9

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶10

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶11

Date:10.11.2011 Note:CC by 11.11.2011 bo usd

Ravi Weighing and Service Station, a registered partnership v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Weighing and Service Station, a registered partnership v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Chorasia Constructions and Infrastructure Private Limited Vs M/s Maytas Hill Country Pvt. Ltd.

Ch.Chandrasekhar Vs The A.P Scheduled Tribes Co-op.Finance Co-op Ltd.

S. Nageswara Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Yorks Equipments Vs M/S.Sanghi Industries Ltd.

R. Sambabu, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Kadapa

Venture Finance Development Corporation Limited Vs -