Point of Law :
Distinction between ‘lease’ and ‘license’. Supreme Court held that lease is a transfer of interest in land and such transfer is called lease hold interest. In case of ‘lease’, the lessor parts with his right to enjoy the property during the term of the ‘lease’ and lessee gets that right to the exclusion of the lessor. If a document gives only a right to use a property in a particular way or under certain terms, while it remains in possession and control of the owner thereon, it will be a ‘license’. According to Supreme Court, when ‘license’ is granted, the legal possession continues to be with the owner of the property but licensee is permitted to use the premises for a particular purpose. Thus, in general terms, whenever, a license is granted, the owner of the property is not parted with the possession and control of the land.

1. Heard Sri K.Sharath, Sri Ch.Satish Kumar and Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in 47615, 48202 of 2018 and WP No.339 of 2019 respectively and Sri P.Venugopal, learned senior counsel for respondents.

2. In W.P.Nos.47615 and 48202 of 2018 petitioners claim that they belong to Schedule Tribe community, living in agency area. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) issued open notification calling for applications for enlistment to award Regular/Rural Retail Outlets at various locations. Two locations notified are Sarapaka village, Burgampadu mandal, and Satyanarayanapuram village in Cherla mandal respectively in Bhadradri Kothagudem district, which are in the agency area. The said outlets are earmarked for open competition, thus, enabling all the categories of persons to apply. Challenge to this notification with reference to these two villages outlets is primarily on the ground that as the said outlets are located in a scheduled area, the outlets have to be allotted only to ST people living in the scheduled area and not to any other person. Therefore, throwing open the competition to all is ex facie illegal and in contravention of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short, ‘Regulation, 1959’) and its Amendment Act 1 of 1970.

3. In W.P.No.339 of 2019 petitioner claims that he belongs to Schedule Tribe community, resident of Gandhinagar Colony of Paloncha and challenges the notification issued by three Petroleum companies on 14.12.2018 calling for applications for enlistment as Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealerships to the extent of 50 locations within the scheduled areas throwing the dealerships to open competition primarily on the ground that said notification was not preceded by resolution of Grama Sabha of respective Gram Panchayats in Bhadradri - Kothagudem district.

4. Sri K.Sarath, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.47615 of 2018 would submit that as per Regulation 1959, land cannot be transferred to a non-tribal by any person including a local non-tribal who owns land and can be transferred only to a tribal. The impact of the present notification is that the land would be transferred to second respondent Corporation, therefore same is illegal. Since, land cannot be transferred to a non-tribal, the notification treating the location as open to all is ex facie illegal. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in SAMATHA Vs STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS (1997) 8 SCC 191), and the decision of this Court in ADARSHA ADIVASI MAHILA SAMITI Vs AGENT TO GOVERNMENT (2003 (5) ALT 287). Learned counsel for petitioner placed heavy reliance on the definition of ‘transfer’ as incorporated in Regulation 2(h) and provision in Regulation 3(1) of Regulation, 1959.

4.1. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED V. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND OTHERS (2013) 6 SCC 476)(paragraphs 40 & 41), he would submit that the notification is illegal.

5. Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.48202 of 2018 would further submit that Part VI-A of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 requires that unless consent is accorded by the Gram Sabha of the Gram Panchayat where retail out let is sought to be located, no retail out let can be established. He would submit that as no prior consent of Gram Sabha was obtained, notification in so far as location of outlet in Satyanarayanapuram village, Cherla mandal, in Bhadradri Kothagudem district is illegal, therefore no selection can be held.

6. Learned counsel Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.339 of 2019 dwelled into legislative history in vesting powers in Grama Sabha of a village located in agency area. He would submit that in exercise of power under Article 243-M(4)(b) of the Constitution of India, Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (Act 40 of