B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 01-09-2003 passed in the writ petition no. 6329 of 2003. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :-

( 2 ) ONE late Smt. Sakina Bai Hazi Abdulla was the true and absolute owner of the land admeasuring 1225 Sq. yds. situated in municipal No. 10-3-5, Mehdipatnam Cross roads, I lyderabad (for short "the said land" ). The respondents/writ petitioners claim to be her legal heirs.

( 3 ) THE said land was leased to the predecessor of the appellant M/s. Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd. , namely m/s. Esso Standard Inc. by the original owner on 01 -02-1970. The lease agreement was effective from 01 -04-1970 for a period of ten years (first five years rental @ Rs. 400. 00 per month and the next five years rental @ rs. 450/- per month ). There was a renewal option in the said lease agreement for a further period of ten years. The renewal option was accordingly exercised by the lessee vide letter dated 20-11 -1979. The lease period was accordingly extended and the land owner executed another lease deed dated 22-04-1980 in favour of the appellant corporation extending the lease for another period of ten years commencing from 01-04-1980. The lease period expired by 31-03-1990. The owner Smt. Sakina Bai hazi Abdulla died in the year 1987.

( 4 ) THE Corporation admittedly has not paid rentals as per the lease agreement after the death of the original owner. The corporation has not vacated the premises even after the expiry of the lease period. The chief Regional Manager of the Corporation in purported exercise of powers under secs. 5 and 7 (3) of the E. S. S. O. (Acquisition of undertaking in India) Act, 1974, has sent an intimation dated 13-03-1990 to the writ petitioners exercising the statutory right of renewal of lease for a further period of ten years commencing from 01-04-1980 (sic. 1990) on the same terms and conditions on which the Corporation held the lease. It is unnecessary to refer in detail, the correspondence between the appellants and the writ petitioners. The fact remains that even the said extended lease period also expired by 31-03-2000. The gravamen of the complaint in the instant writ petition relates to the refusal on the part of the appellants herein to vacate the land even after the expiry of the lease period.

( 5 ) THE appellants in their counter affidavit filed in the writ petition stated that the corporation vide its letters dt. 17-09-1987, 13-03-1990, 07-10-1996 and 01-03-2000, advised the persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the original owner to provide details of their claims so as to enable the corporation to pay the rentals for the leased site. They did not come forth with the required documentation and proof. However, rentals were sent by the Corporation up to october, 1987, and rental cheques were returned from June, 1987, onwards. It is also the case of the appellant Corporation that the land occupied by the retail outlet premises was declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, by the special Officer and Competent Authority vide his proceedings dated 14-06-1980 and the appeal preferred by the legal heirs against the order of the competent authority was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 18-02-1995. The legal heirs therefore cannot claim absolute rights over the property, as it is open to the Government to acquire the same for public purpose.

( 6 ) IN the reply affidavit filed by the general Power of Attorney Holder of the writ petitioners, the details as to how the writ petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased original owner are stated.

( 7 ) THE simple case of the writ petitioners is that the corporation even after the expiry of the extended lease period on 31 -03-2000, did not deliver the vacant possession of the premises to the writ petitioners and continue to illegally squat on the property. Being the leg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document