1 Date of reserved for orders : 24.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 22.09.2026 Date of uploading : 22.09.2026 APHC010319992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15956/2025 Between: T V Yuvaraj ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHREYAS REDDY 2. A RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that, even after expiry of the lease period on 31.03.2018, the respondent nos.2 to 4 are not vacating and handing over the vacant physical possession of the property admeasuring Ac.0.44cents in Sy.No.252, Patta No.853 situated in Paanagallu village, Kalahasti mandal, Tirupathi district. 2 2. Heard Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent and Sri Shreyas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, having purchased the subject property vide document no.1327/1991 dated 30.08.1991, the petitioner’s father executed a lease deed in favour of the 3rd respondent-corporation for a period of 20 years vide Doc.No.110/1999 dated 22.04.1999 at Sub-Registrar office, Kalahasti. He further submitted that, as per the said lease deed, the lease period commences from 01.04.1998 till 31.03.2018 by paying lease amount by 10th of every month and it was further recited in the lease deed that after completion of lease period, the 3rd respondent (lessee) has to handover the leased premises in the same condition as existing on the date of lease by removing structures if any in the subject property. He further submitted that, after the death of petitioner’s father, the petitioner and his three sisters got executed a deed of settlement of immovable property on 17.06.2022 which was duly registered as Doc.No.3039/2022 and as per the said settlement deed, the subject property fell to the share of the petitioner herein and thus, he has got exclusive and absolute right over the subject property. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even after expiry of lease period on 31.03.2018, the 3rd respondent has not handed over the subject property to the petitioner and further, after the death of the petitioner’s father, the 3rd respondent totally failed to pay lease amount i.e., 3 from 2005 onwards. He further submitted that, though the petitioner has sent a representation to the 3rd respondent on 05.08.2024 to deliver the vacant possession and pay damages for illegal usage and occupation of the subject property, there was no response from the 3rd respondent. He further submitted that, on 07.11.2024, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner seeking renewal of the lease period for retail outlet in Sy.No.252/1B, Kalahasti town, Tirupathi district which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent is in illegal possession and enjoyment of the subject property without paying lease amount since 2005 and now the 4th respondent is running retail business in the subject property and 3rd respondent is installing electrical charging stations yielding some additional revenue to the 3rd respondent. He further submitted that, without consent from the petitioner, installation of electrical charging stations and not vacating the subject property even after expiry of lease period that too without paying lease amount is unsustainable and amounts to depriving the fundamental rights of the petitioner. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent 2 to 4 filed a counter affidavit contending that, the purport ted family certificate issued by the tahsildar was solely on the basis of the petitioner’s application, therefore, the settlement deed purported to be executed between the petitioner and his sisters cannot form basis for 4 reckoning the petitioner as an exclusive owner and possessor of the leased land, as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition and moreover, filed the present writ petition with an inordinate delay of 7 years which is barred by limitation/latches. He further submitted that, the respondents are unaware of the death of the original owner of the leased land until 2024, and that the respondent corporation has been regularly paying lease rentals by dispatching cheques to the original lessor’s designated address even after 31.03.2018. He further submitted that neither the lessor’s heir nor the lessee had expressly terminated the registered lease deed either prior to or after 31.03.2018. He further submitted that, as per clause 4(1) in the lease deed, the lessor tacitly agreed with the respondent-lessee to continue the lease hold over the leased land beyond 31.03.2018 on regular payment of agreed lease rental monies and Clause 1 of the lease deed permits the respondent corporation to erect and maintain all types of equipment, buildings, machinery and other facilities on the leased land. Hence, no grounds are raised warranting the interference of this court and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. 5. To the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by virtue of Rule 152 of the Petroleum rules, 2002 the word ‘right’ only means a legal right to continue on the land and that the petitioner herein has lost the legal right by virtue of expiry of the lease and though the respondent corporation is in the possession of the land, it cannot be termed as legal possession or lawful possession. 5 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 7. The main grounds raised by the petitioner is that even after expiry of the lease period on 31.03.2018, the respondent corporation did not vacate the leased land nor paid the lease rental amount since 2005. 8. Before discussing the factual aspects, it is appropriate to examine Rule 152 of the Rules, 2002 deals with the suspension and cancellation of the license, which reads thus: 152. Suspension and cancellation of license: (1) Every license granted under these rules shall- (i) stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum; (ii) stand cancelled, if the no objection certificate is cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 150; (iii) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder or of any condition contained in such license, or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so: Provided that-(a) before suspending or cancelling a license under this rule, the holder of the license shall be given an opportunity of being heard; (b)the maximum period of suspension shall not exceed three months; and (c)the suspension of a license shall not debar the holder of the license from applying for its renewal in accordance with the provisions of rule 148. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), an opportunity of being heard may not be given to the holder of a license before his license is suspended or cancelled in cases- (a)where the license is suspended by a licensing authority as an interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules, or of any conditions contained in such license and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the public: 6 Provided that where a license is so suspended, the licensing authority shall give the holder of the license an opportunity of being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed; or (b)where the license is suspended or cancelled by the Central Government, if that Government considers that in the public interest or in the interest of the security of the State, such opportunity should not be given. (3)A licensing authority or the Central Government suspending or cancelling a license under sub-rule (1), shall record its reason for so doing in writing. 9. The above provision states that if a lease expires or the licensee is vacated/evicted, they legally cease to have a "right to the site" for storing petroleum, and since the licensee ceased to have any right to the site for storing petroleum, the license granted under the Rules shall stand cancelled. 10. In C.Albert Morris Vs K.Chandrasekharan and others 1, the Apex court had held that, any right which the dealer has over his site was the right which he had acquired in terms of the lease. When that lease expired and when the landlord declined to renew the same and also called upon the erstwhile tenant to surrender possession, the erstwhile lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to the site. His continued occupation of something which he had no right to occupy cannot be regarded as source of a right to the land of which he himself was not in lawful possession. 11. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Chockalingam & Ors. Vs. V.Manickavasagam & Ors2, litigious possession cannot be regarded as lawful possession. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan 1 (2006) 1 SCC 228 2 1974 (1) SCC 48 7 Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr Vs Dolly Das3 held that the Corporation, being a Government of India Company, should be a role model for the other litigants, but it cannot resort to unnecessary litigation by squatting on the site without paying rents, and that too, without using the same for the purpose, for which it was originally leased out. Such an action on the part of respondents is arbitrary and totally irrational. 12. It is well settled that lawful possession is not litigious possession and must have some foundation in a legal right to possess the property which cannot be equated with a temporary right to enforce recovery of the property in case a person is wrongfully or forcibly dispossessed from it. Even the juridical possession is possession protected by law against wrongful dispossession but cannot per se always be equated with lawful possession. 13. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the lease period had expired on 31.03.2018. Therefore, once the lease expires, the licensee will cease right over the property. Having taken the subject premises on lease from the petitioner and having enjoyed the same, the respondent Corporation cannot squat on the property now by taking technical plea and this attitude cannot be encouraged. Further, in view of expiry of lease, there is no reason to relegate the petitioner at this point of time for any civil suit and this Court can grant relief to the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution, particularly in the 3 (1999 8 absence of any semblance of defense to retain possession by respondent corporation for any other period. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent nos.2 to 4 to remove the equipment, if any and handover possession of the subject property to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No