Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Smt.Vaka Suseela vs The Union Of India on 28 October, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.283 OF 2024
ORDER:
–
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
claiming the following relief:
“To issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 in not vacating and in not handing over the vacant
physical possession of the property admeasuring 483 sq.yards in
Sy.No.50/1 and 51 and 484 sq.yards in Sy.No.51 of North
Rajupalem Village, Kodavaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as
illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional and
consequently, direct them to deliver the vacant possession to the
petitioner immediately.”
2. The facts of the case are that, the property in question, admeasuring an
extent of 967 square yards (483 square yards and 484 square yards) in
Sy.No.50/1 and 51, North Rajupalem Village, Palingil, Ward No.6, H.No.6-74,
Kodavaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, was initially owned by Sri Tunga
Indudhar Reddy. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 established a retail outlet for sale of
petrol and diesel on this land, by securing a lease through Registered
Document No.825/1971 dated 09.08.1971, which expired on 31.08.1991.
Subsequently, they obtained a 20-year lease extension from 01.09.1991 to
2
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
31.08.2011. Two Supplementary Lease Deeds dated 16.04.1999 were
executed between T. Indudhar Reddy and Respondent Nos.2 & 3 for a further
6-year extension from 01.09.2011 with increased rent. The petitioner’s son,
Vaka Ramakrishna Reddy, acquired the property through two separate
Registered Sale Deeds Document No.237/2011 and No.236/2011 dated
10.02.2011. Finally, the son of the petitioner transferred the ownership over
the subject property to the petitioner through two Registered Gift Deeds i.e
Document No.890/2017 and No.889/2017 dated 21.04.2017, as such, the
petitioner became absolute owner of the entire property.
3. Upon expiration of the lease on 01.09.2017, the petitioner, now the
rightful owner, sought for reclaim of the property for his/her personal use. She
made multiple attempts to regain physical possession from Respondent Nos.2
& 3, who continued the occupation of the premises. The petitioner issued
Legal Notices 12.07.2017, 05.12.2018 and 26.11.2019, demanding
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to vacate the premises and handover the possession
of the property to the petitioner.
4. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed counter affidavit, alleging that, petitioner is a
stranger to the corporation and no lease deed is entered between the
corporation and the writ petitioner. The petitioner gave a legal notice dated
26-11-2019 claiming title over the property on the basis of the gift deed. The
3
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
petitioner has to approach the proper forum and cannot maintain the present
writ petition. It is submitted that earlier the Writ Petitioner filed W.P No. 19326
of 2020 for the very same grievance and relief and this Hon’ble Court was
pleased to dispose of Writ Petition vide orders dated 21-04-2023 directing the
petitioner to submit a representation to this respondent along with her son and
directed this respondent to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks
vide orders dated 21-04-2023. This respondent disposed of the representation
vide orders dated 31-05- 2023. The writ petitioner has not challenged the
orders dated 31-05-2023. Hence it is submitted that on these grounds the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. It is submitted in the counter affidavit that, the lease with respect to
property situated at Survey No.51, North Rajupalem, Kodavalur, Nellore
District, Andhra Pradesh admeasuring 3200 square feet was executed
between Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited
and C. Lakshmi Narasimham Sons & Co vide lease deed dated 14.07.1962.
The said lease deed was registered as Document No. 1988 of 1962 with the
Office of Sub Registrar, Nellore for a period of 13 years from 01.04.1958 to
31.08.1971 at a quarterly rent of Rs 30. The said lease expired on 31.08.1971.
The said lease was further renewed for a period of 20 years from 01.09.1971
vide Lease Deed dated 07.08.1971 registered as Document No. 825 of 1971.
4
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
On 24.01.1976, the Government of India acquired the entire equity
shareholding in Burmah Shell, which as a result became a Government
Company with effect from that date. Therefore, with effect from the said date,
the right, title and interest and the liabilities of the lessee i.e Burmah Shell Oil
Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited in relation to its
undertakings in India stood transferred to and vested in, the Central
Government, by virtue of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in
India) Act, 1976. The name of the Company was changed from Burmah Shell
to Burmah Refineries Limited and ultimately Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited. The said lease was further renewed for a period of 20 years from
01.09.1991 to 31.08.2011 vide lease deed dated 02.05.1996 registered as
Document No. 261 of 1996 between M/s Lakshmi Narasimham and Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited It is further submitted that the said property
was purchased by Mr T. Indudhar Reddy and he was subsequently attorned
as the lessor for the said site vide letter dated 10.07.1997. Subsequently a
supplementary lease deed dated 16.04.1999 registered as Document No. 465
of 1999 was executed with Mr T. Indudhar Reddy for extension of the lease
period mentioned in lease deed No. 261 of 1999 for a period of 6 years from
01.09.2011. Vide Lease Deed dated 21.04.1999 registered as Document No.
264 of 1999, an additional extent of 4343 square feet (403.36 square metres)
was demised to the Corporation by Mr T Indudhar Reddy in Survey No. 50/1
5
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
and 51, North Rajupalem, Kodavalur, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh
admeasuring 4343 square feet for a period of 20 years from 01.09.1997 to
31.08.2017. It is submitted that as per the records maintained by the
Corporation, the said Mr T. Indudhar Reddy sold land admeasuring 298
square metres vide Sale Deed No. 1153 / 1999 in favour of Mr. Pulukuri Siva
Prasad and Gorantla Venkateswarlu and sold land admeasuring 4343 square
feet in favour of Mr. Mylapalli Somaiah and Mr. Pulukuri Koteswara Rao vide
Sale Deed No. 1134 of 1999. Further vide Relinquishment Deed dated
07.05.2009 registered as Document No. 1231 o 2009, Mr. Pulukuri Siva
Prasad relinquished his has share in favour of Gorantla Venkateswarlu and
vide Relinquishment Deed dated 19.10.2009 registered as Document No.
2441 of 2009, Mr. Mylapalli Somaiah relinquished his half share in favour of
Mr. Pulukuri Koteswara Rao. Accordingly, Mr. Gorantla Venkateswarlu and Mr.
Pulukuri Koteswara Rao were attorned as the lessors for the said site. It is
further submitted that a letter dated 11.04.2016 was received by the
Corporation from Mr Vaka Rama Krishna Reddy stating that he has purchased
the property mentioned hereinabove from Mr. Gorantla Venkateswarlu and Mr.
Pulukuri Koteswara Rao. In view of the same, he was attorned as the lessor
vide letter dated 09.05.2016. Since then, the rental amount of Rs. 3,750/- per
month is being paid to him through high cheques directly from our Head
Quarters. Thus this respondent is lawfully continuing in possession of the
6
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
property as a tenant holding over. It is relevant to mention here that till Dec
2019, the landlord received rentals through NEFT and thereafter the NEFT
payments to the account provided by the landlord have failed. Corporation has
changed the payment method to cheque payment and though he has been
receiving the cheques, for the best reasons known to the landlord, he is not
encashing the cheques.
6. It is submitted that, that the corporation is continuing in the possession
of the property by paying the rentals as a tenant holding over and the
corporation is not restricted by any law to seek renewal of lease from the
landlord for the purpose of continuing its business in the subject premises by
fixing the rentals after negotiations with the landlord. BPCL is willing to renew
the lease with new terms and conditions which can be negotiated. However,
exorbitant rentals were being demanded by the petitioner which are very much
higher than the market rate and they are also not coming forward for
negotiations.
7. It is submitted that, the grievance of the petitioner is not amenable to
judicial review as there is no arbitrariness in the action of the respondent and
there are no fundamental rights of the petitioner being infringed by these
respondents. The entire grievance is with regard to the contractual matter of
7
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
lease and involved disputed questions of facts and thus the writ petition is not
maintainable and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
8. During hearing, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the
present case, there are no disputed questions of law or facts arose for
consideration, as such, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can grant any relief in the writ petition.
He submits that, the petitioner acquired the subject property through
registered sale deed in the year 2017, thus she became the absolute owner of
the subject property. After she became owner of the subject property and
expiration of lease executed in favour of the respondent – corporation on
01.09.2017, the petitioner herein requested the respondents to vacate the
premises and to handover the physical possession of the subject property.
The petitioner got issued Legal Notices dated 12.07.2017, 05.12.2018 and
26.11.2019 demanding to vacate the premises and to handover the
possession of the property to the petitioner. Even though the lease was
expired on 01.09.2017, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Hyderabad,
renewed the license of the respondents from 2017 to 31.12.2020 in favour of
Respondent Nos.2 & 3. The said action of the authority is contrary to the
Petroleum Rules, 2002.
8
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, the petitioner also submitted her
representation dated 19.11.2019 requesting to vacate and handover the
physical possession of the property or alternatively she proposed the rental
income of Rs.4 lakhs per month for renewal of further lease period in favour of
the respondents. But the respondents did not agree for the rental amount, as
requested by the petitioner, nor vacated the premises and handed over the
same to her. Moreover, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are continuing in possession,
contrary to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, on 13.05.2022,
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 terminated outlet license granted to the dealer
pursuant to the cancellation of No Objection Certificate granted by
Respondent No.4 on 18.06.2024. He further submits that, finally, considering
the request of the petitioner, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives also
cancelled Form-14 License under Petroleum Rules, 2002. Even after
cancellation of Form-16 and issuing No Objection Certificate under Petroleum
Rules, 2002 by the concerned authorities, for one reason or the other,
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are not vacating the property and they are not handing
over the same to the petitioner, which is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of
Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and Constitutional Right
guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
9
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
11. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Albert Morris vs.
K. Chandrasekharan and others 1 and Natinoal Company rep by its
Managing Partner vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited and another2. On the strength of the law declared by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, learned Senior Counsel would
contend that, once the lease has expired and the landlord has declined to
renew the lease and where the owner calls upon the tenant to surrender
possession, the tenant could no longer assert any right over the site.
12. On the other hand, Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that the petitioner filed the present writ
petition invoking non-statutory contract and non-infraction of the terms which
does not fall in the domain of public law remedy, as such, the writ petition is
not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. the question as
to whether the petitioner has sub-let or leased out the said premises to
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 is a disputed question of fact, which can only be
adjudicated upon by the parties before the appropriate forum.
1
(2006) 1 SCC 228
2
(2021) 13 SCC 121
10
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
13. He submits that, since the entire transaction is a non-statutory contract
other than the public law remedy, the petitioner has to invoke the other
remedies under Court of Law. Moreover, the rights of the petitioner are in the
nature of purely private character and no mandamus can be issued merely
against the respondent corporation, as if a public duty is to be performed. He
further submits that, the respondents after taking steps to revoke the No
Objection Certificate cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate and also
pursuing to renew the explosive license which was cancelled in view of the
complaint lodged by the petitioner.
14. He further submits that, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are willing to renew the
lease with new terms and conditions which can be negotiated. On one hand,
the petitioner is agreeing for renewal of lease and on the other hand, the
petitioner is demanding exorbitant rental amounts, which are very much higher
than the market rate, as such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be
considered. The dealership license was terminated on account of the
irregularities committed by the dealer in violation of marketing guidelines, but
not on the ground of cancellation of No Objection Certificate as well as
Explosive license by the authorities concerned, as mentioned supra. In view of
cancellation of No Objection Certificate and non-renewal of explosive license,
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are restrained from carrying on any business in the
11
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
subject premises, but they are pursuing for renewal of lease with the petitioner
as well as to restore the license with the authorities concerned.
15. He further submits that, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19326 of 2020 for the
same relief, wherein, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 21.04.2023,
giving liberty to the petitioner along with her son Dr.V. Ramakrishna Reddy to
make a representation to the respondent Corporation within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Accordingly, after
having negotiations with the petitioner Respondent Nos.2 & 3 passed an order
on 31.05.2023, which is not challenged before any appropriate court. But, the
petitioner preferred C.C.No.347 of 2023 alleging that the orders of this Court
dated 21.04.2023 are violated by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the same is
pending for consideration. Therefore, in view of the orders passed by the
respondent, impugned in W.P.No.19326 of 2020, which is not under challenge
and attained finality, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. In
support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors vs.
Union of India3 to contend that the courts should exercise a lot of restraint
while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial
matters and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
3
(2020) 16 SCC 489
12
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
16. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.
Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri V.V. Satish, learned
Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and perused the material placed
on record before this Court.
17. Considering rival contentions and on perusal of the material available
on record, the points that need to be answered are as follows
(i) whether the writ petition is maintainable even in the
presence of an alternate remedy, despite availability of
efficacious alternative statutory remedy?
(ii) whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed in
the writ petition?
P O I N T No.1
18. One of the major contentions is that the writ petition is not maintainable
without availing equally efficacious effective and statutory remedy available to
the petitioners. Since the petitioner gave a legal notice dated 26.11.2019
claiming title to the property on the basis of the Gift Deed, the petitioner may
approach proper forum and cannot maintain the present writ petition,
according to the contention of learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
Nos.2 & 3. But the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri P.
13
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
Veera Reddy contended that, even though the petitioner may approach
appropriate forum, still the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of the High
Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India
19. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries
v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others 4 summarized the following six
principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the
presence of an alternate remedy, despite availability of efficacious alternative
statutory remedy under the Act.
“28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
issue writs can be exercised not only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other
purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a
writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the
power of the High Court is where an effective
alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved
person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise
wherea. the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of
a fundamental right protected by Part III of the4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334
14
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024Constitution;
b. there has been a violation of the principles of natural
justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction; or
c. the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the
High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily,
a writ petition should not be entertained when an
efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the
right or liability, resort must be had to that particular
statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This
rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of
policy, convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact,
the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a
writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively
of the view that the nature of the controversy requires
the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would
not readily be interfered with.”
15
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
20. The same principles were reiterated by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in M/s. Magadh Sugar & Energy Limited v. The State of Bihar5.
21. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she made several
representations to deliver the vacant possession of the land to her, as claimed
in the writ petition. But, for the reasons best known to the respondents, they
did not respond to any of the representation positively or negatively, thereby,
there is a demand and denial to discharge of public duty, being public officers.
In such case, writ petition is maintainable. When a public officer failed to
discharge his public duty i.e. deliver vacant possession of petitioner’s site and
invented such a story of requesting the petitioner to renew the lease at
mutually agreeable terms and conditions. This writ petition has been filed for
the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and also
challenging violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition is
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by applying the
principle laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the
judgments referred above.
P O I N T No.2:
22. It is an admitted fact that the predecessors of the petitioner have
executed registered lease deeds since 1962 for a period of 40 years upto the
5 Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021 dated 24.09.2021
16
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
year 2011. It is also an admitted fact that, after acquisition of the property by
son of the petitioner in the year 2-011, the lease was extended for a period of
six years i.e. upto 01.09.2017. Before expiration of the said lease, the
petitioner became absolute owner of the subject property by way of Gift and
Settlement Deeds executed on 21.04.2017. It is also an admitted fact that,
after 01.09.2017, no renewal of lease was granted in favour of Respondent
Nos.2 & 3. It is further observed that, in view of non-renewal of lease period of
the petitioner, the petitioner was not paid any lease amounts to the petitioner
since 2017.
23. Further, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 that, the subject lease between the petitioner and Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 is a non-statutory contract and the rights between the parties are
purely private in character and there is no element of public law remedy
involved out of the subject transaction. Therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, muchless, the
petitioner can invoke other law remedies before Court of law is contrary to the
settled proposition of law, for the reason that the action on part of the
respondents keeping quiet without discharging a public duty cast upon it being
public authority is nothing but an act of arbitrary and illegal. Once an action of
respondent is called as arbitrary and illegal, there must be an infringement of
17
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
fundamental right or constitutional right or legal right conferred upon the
lessee. Therefore, the contention of the respondent is liable to be rejected and
the writ petition is maintainable.
24. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 that constitution of retail outlets is very much necessity to cater the
needs of the people in Urban areas, for which Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are
pursuing renewal of lease with the petitioner. But the petitioner is demanding
exorbitant rents towards lease which is unjust and trying to take undue
advantage against Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Such an attempt cannot be
permitted and is contrary to the law and continuing the illegal or unauthorized
possession of the properties, for the reason that, the petitioner is absolute
owner of the subject property and she has a constitutional right under Article
300-A of the Constitution of India, either to accept renewal of lease or not. She
has every fundamental right to deal with her property under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, catering the needs of the public in urban
area by providing retail outs, certainly is subject to the acceptance of the
petitioner, which are her fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
25. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life. The right to
life includes the right to livelihood. Time and again the Constitutional Courts in
18
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
India held that Article 21 is one of the great silences of the Constitution. The
right to livelihood cannot be subjected to individual fancies of the persons in
authority. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far
reaching. An important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no
person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If
the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life,
the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive
him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Any person, who is
deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure
established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life
conferred by Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
26. The right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation is enshrined in
Article 21 and derives its life breadth from the Directive Principles of State
Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42
and at least, therefore, it must include the right to live with human dignity.
27. In “Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress 6”,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the principle observed that the
right to life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot
hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. Income is the foundation of
6
(1991)ILLJ395SC
19
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
many fundamental rights. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to
the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a
mockery of them.
28. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, protects right of an individual,
but such right in the property can be deprived of save by authority of law. The
right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or a statutory
right, but also a human right. Though, it is not a basic feature of the
constitution or a fundamental right, human rights are considered to be in realm
of individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right
to shelter and employment etc. Now, human rights are gaining an even
greater multi faceted dimension. The right to property is considered, very
much to be a part of such new dimension (Vide: Tukaram Kanna Joshi Vs.
M.I.D.C7.
29. Though the lease was expired in the year 2017. For one reason or the
other, without paying any rentals and without there being any authority,
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are holding illegal possession unauthorizedly over the
subject property is contrary to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act
and in violation of Article 14, 21, 19(1)(g) & 300-A of the Constitution of India.
As such, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are liable for payment of rentals for its
7
AIR 2013 SC 565]
20
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
business operations which were continued upto the year 2021, even in the
absence of lease at the rate to be determined as per the market value of the
property and liable to pay damages for rest of the period till today for its
continuous possession and for not handing over physical possession of the
subject property in favour of the petitioner.
30. It is observed that, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19326 of 2020 before this
Court, wherein this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition, directing
the petitioner along with her son Dr. V. Ramakrishna Reddy to make a
representation to the respondents corporation. Accordingly, the petitioner
submitted representation on 11.0.2023 and Respondent No.3 by letter dated
31.05.2023 implicity rejected the representation of the petitioner requesting
her to renew the lease at mutually agreeable terms and conditions. Vide letter
dated 16.06.2023, the petitioner is in clear and categorical terms informed to
Respondent Nos.3 as follows:
“2……… The subject property is a commercial property and
value of the site is drastically increased. Still the BPCL requires
the land, the lease can be renewed on payment of rental amount
of Rs.4,00,000/- per month. If the BPCL is not inclined to pay
such rental amount, we request to vacate the land and
deliver the vacant possession of the same to us
immediately”
21
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
31. Thus, from the letter dated`16.06.2023 addressed by the petitioner and
her son to Respondent No.3/Territory Manager, it is clear that, the petitioner
had requested to vacate the land and deliver the vacant possession of the
same in case the lease is not renewed on payment of rental amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- per month. What was leased out was only a vacant site to
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to put up a petrol bunk with accessory constructions
thereon. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have no legal right to continue on the land of
the petitioner and they cannot insist the petitioner to execute the lease deed in
the terms and conditions which are not agreeable to the petitioner. In the
absence of any express consent given by the petitioner in extending the lease
in favour of Respondent Nos.2 & 3, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 cannot squat over
the property of the petitioner, depriving her of her legitimate right guaranteed
under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
32. In Paragraph No.13 of the affidavit, the petitioner in clear and
categorical terms stated that, she intends to utilize the land for her own
purpose. When the petitioner intends to enjoy her property in her own right,
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have no manner of right whatsoever to continue in
unauthorized occupation of the said land.
33. In view of my foregoing discussion, the entire action of Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 in not vacating and not handing over the vacant physical
22
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
possession of the property admeasuring an extent of 483 sq.yds in Sy.No.50/1
and 51 and an extent of 484 sq.yds in Sy.No.51 of North Rajupalem Village,
Kodavaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Fundamental Right as well as Constitutional Rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India.
34. In the result, writ petition is allowed, with the following directions:
a. The action of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not vacating and not
handing over the vacant physical possession of the property
admeasuring an extent of 483 sq.yds in Sy.No.50/1 and 51 and an
extent of 484 sq.yds in Sy.No.51 of North Rajupalem Village,
Kodavaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is declared as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Right as well as Constitutional
Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300-A of the
Constitution of India;
b. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are directed to vacate and hand over the
vacant physical possession of the property admeasuring an extent of
483 sq.yds in Sy.No.50/1 and 51 and an extent of 484 sq.yds in
Sy.No.51 of North Rajupalem Village, Kodavaluru Mandal, SPSR
23
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024Nellore District, to the petitioner within a period of two (02) months
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
c. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 shall pay the rentals for the business they
have carried on upto the year 2021, even in the absence of lease at
the rate to be determined on the basis of the market value of the
property as per the guidelines or regulations of the respondent
corporation afresh.
d. The petitioner is at liberty to claim damages from Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 for remaining period i.e. from 2021 to till today for not
handing over physical possession of the subject property.
35. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also
stand dismissed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Date: 28.10.2024
SP
24
NV,J
W.P.No.283 of 2024
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.283 OF 2024
Date 28.10.2024
SP