1 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 APHC010219122016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 557/2016 Between: 1. M/S SHYAM SUNDAR INDIAN OIL SERVICE STATION,, SATTENAPALLI,, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DEVARASETTI NIRMALA, W/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC; IOC DEALER. R/O. D.NO:4-4-4, SBI BACKSIDE, SATTENAPALLI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAGARJUNA SAGAR RIGHT CANAL, (O&M) DIVISION, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NSJC (O&M) SUB-DIVISION, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toIssue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the Letter No.EE/O&M/SAP/AB/A3/B/1/1168-M, dated 25.11.2015 and the subsequent Letter No.EE/O&M/SAP/AB/A3/1265-M, dated 28.12.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.47,65,500/- 2 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 towards the alleged arrears from 01.09.1993 to till date without any basis and without application of mind is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the 19(1(g)) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 688 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the Letter No.EE/O&M/SAP/AB/A3/B/1/1168-M, dated 25.11.2015 and the subsequent Letter No.EE/O&M/SAP/AB/A3/1265-M, dated 28.12.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.47,65,500/- towards the alleged arrears from 01.09.1993 to till date, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2016(WVMP 977 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders dt. 06-01-2016 passed in WPMP No. 688/2016 in WP No. 557/2016 and dismiss the writ petition as there are no merits in it Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the Letter No.EE/O&M/SAP/AB/A3/B/1/1168-M, dated 25.11.2015 and the subsequent Letter No.EE/&OM/SAP/AB/A3/1265-M, dated 28.12.2015 issued by the 2ndrespondent demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.47,65,500/ towards the alleged arrears from 01.09.1993 to till date without any basis and without application of mind is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set- aside the same ….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, in the year 1976, the petitioner’s husband made an application to the 2nd respondent for grant an extent of 1000 Sq.yards in Sy.No.349 at Sattenapalli Town, which belongs to the Nagarjuna Sagar Project Canal in Sattenapalli Town with a view to establish the petrol/Diesel Bunk (Retail outlet). On his request, the then Superintendent Engineer granted lease initially for a period of five years by fixing the monthly rent at Rs.100/-. In pursuance of the same, the Indian Oil Corporation has granted dealership to the petitioner’s husband under the name and style of ‘Syam Sundar Indian Oil Service Station’. Subsequently, on 06.05.1994, the said lease was renewed for a further period of two years by fixing the rent at Rs.900/- per month. On 24.08.1996, the petitioner’s husband died due to ill- health. After the demise of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner started 4 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 running the business by duly paying the rent as demanded by the 2nd respondent. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that, though there was no further extension of the lease agreement in writing, the petitioner was allowed to continue the business of running the Petrol Bunk in this site by receiving the rents by the respondents. Due to certain family problems, the petitioner could not run the business for a period of three years i.e., from 2009 to 2013. As the petitioner was due of the rents payable by her for the previous years, (2009 to 2013), the 2nd respondent issued a notice on 20.11.2013, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,100/- duly calculating the rent @ Rs.1100/- per month till November, 2013. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,12,300/- payable up to December, 2013 vide challan dated 28.01.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has also paid Rs.17,600/- vide challan dated 06.05.2015, an amount of Rs.12,100/- till March, 2016 vide challan dated 30.11.2015. As such, there are no dues towards the rents payable till March 2016. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the demise of the petitioner’s husband, the Joint-Collector, Guntur District, issued License No.341/2000 in favour of the petitioner, and the same has been renewed from time to time, and is valid up to 31.12.2017. 4. While the matter being so, due to local political leaders’ interference in the petitioner’s business, the respondent issued letter dated 25.11.2015 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.47,65,500/- for the period from 5 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 01.09.1993 to till date excluding the earlier payment made by her to a tune of Rs.2,17,300/- and further directed the petitioner to handover the land to the department as early as possible within the stipulated period. In response to the said impugned letter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.12.2015, bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent the amounts already paid by the petitioner and also requesting the 2nd respondent to drop the said proceedings as there are no dues as on the date of the said letter. But, in spite of the same, without application of mind and under the pressure from the politicians, the subsequent impugned letter dated 28.12.2015 was issued, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay the entire amount as per the earlier demand in the letter dated 25.11.2015, failing which the amounts would be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act. Challenging the said impugned letter, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. When the matter came up for admission on 06.01.2016, this Court passed an interim order suspending the letter dated 25.11.2015 and the subsequent letter dated 28.12.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent. 6. The respondent No.2 has filed a detailed counter, duly admitting the facts as stated by the petitioner; however, has stated that the petitioner has been in unauthorized occupation of the site for the last 20 years without getting the lease renewed. As such, the respondents have demanded the petitioner to vacate the premises and pay the arrears amount, failing which the said amount will be recovered as per the Revenue Recovery Act, which is 6 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 neither illegal nor arbitrary. It is further stated that, since the beginning, the petitioner’s late husband was a defaulter in payment of rents during his lifetime, and though the respondents have been continuously demanding that the petitioner, for the last 20 years, conclude the lease agreement after the demise of her husband by paying the arrears amount, the petitioner has failed to come forward to clear the arrears. As such, the arrears amount has accumulated to Rs.47,65,500/- till date. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondents. 8. On a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that the respondents have issued a notice dated 20.11.2013, directing the petitioner to pay the dues payable from October, 2009 to October 2013 to a tune of Rs.1,10,100/-, which was admittedly paid by the petitioner vide Challan No.12877, dated 28.01.2014 to a tune of Rs.1,12,300/- along with interest. As such, the question of dues from 1993 to 2013 does not arise. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also putforth a statement of the amounts paid towards rent by the petitioner from the year 2014 to 19.08.2025, to prove that the petitioner has been continuously paying rent for the subject property without any dues. 10. The following statement shows the details of rent paid by the petitioner towards the subject property from 2014 to 19.08.2025: 7 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 Sl.No. Paid Date CFMS No./Challan No. Paid Amount 1. 28.01.2014 12877 1,12,300/- 2. 30.11.2015 14383 12,100/- 3. 21.03.2016 20874 15,840/- 4. 28.03.2017 21523 18,216/- 5. 12.03.2018 17136 20,949/- 6. 23.04.2019 30007619882019 23,049/- 7. 27.05.2020 41013926402020 26,500/- 8. 23.04.2021 50012339082021 30,400/- 9. 12.04.2022 60000108892022 35,000/- 10. 26.06.2023 70069853362023 40,250/- 11. 19.08.2025 90089027302025 45,000/- 12. 19.08.2025 90089027582025 50,000/- 11. From the above statement, it is evident that the petitioner has established her case by proving that she has been paying the rent without any dues since the date of establishment, i.e., 1974, by duly enhancing the rent at the rate of 15% every year from 2015 onwards. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, NSJC O&M Division, Sattenapalli/respondent No.2, wherein it is certified that the petitioner has applied for extension of the lease agreement for continuing the Petrol Bunk in the scheduled premises, which is under process for concluding the agreement. It is further stated that certain documents are required from the petitioner, and as and when the documents are furnished by the petitioner, the 8 VS,J W.P.No.557 of 2016 respondents are ready to extend the lease in favour of the petitioner, but however, subject to result of the writ petition pending before this Court. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice dated 25.11.2015 and the subsequent letter dated 28.12.2015 are liable to be set aside, and it is for the respondents to reconsider the issue and verify the amounts paid and as well as due by the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned letter dated 25.11.2015 and subsequent letter dated 28.12.2015, and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish all requisite documents, duly enclosing the challans, to prove that the petitioner has paid the rents without any dues since 2015. On receipt of such documents, the respondents shall extend the lease agreement in favour of the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :20.08.2025. KGR