Narravula Vikram vs A Nagendra Kumar And Others

I.A.No.1 of 2024 is an application seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.19127 of 2023.

The aforesaid writ petition bearing No.19127 of 2023 came to be filed by the petitioner, A. Nagendra Kumar, challenging the proceedings dated 27.06.2023 and 10.07.2023 through which the petitioner was directed to stop the permanent construction over a plot of land measuring six cents in R.S.No.665 of Nandigama Town in N.T.R. District. The petitioner had also sought a writ of prohibition for prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the construction being raised by the petitioner in the said premises.

From the record, it can be seen that the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in regard to the land in question by the Executive Officer of the Temple after the petitioner was declared as highest bidder. It further appears from the record that in terms of condition No.18 in the tender notification as also condition No.3 from the license deed, the petitioner had to seek permission from the concerned authority to make permanent construction over the land in question.

According to the stand of the official respondents, the petitioner had started raising construction over the licensed premises without seeking permission from the Commissioner of Endowments in terms of conditions of the tender notice as also the license deed. It was in those circumstances that the writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the Executive Officer could not have granted permission to the petitioner without the approval from the Commissioner who was the competent authority.

In the circumstances above, while dismissing the petition, the Court observed that the judgment and order would not come in the way of Commissioner of Endowments in considering the case of the petitioner if the petitioner submitted the plans for approval to him.

At this stage, it may be worthwhile to mention that pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Endowments, who vide his order dated 08.02.2024 accorded permission to continue the petitioner as a licensee in view of the consent of the licensee that he would hand over the building/construction raised over the licensed premises after the expiry of the license period without claiming any compensation.

It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts that the applicant herein, who claims to be the second highest bidder in the same auction proceedings which led to the grant of license in favour of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, now seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 06.10.2023 on the ground that while the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, no further observations or directions could have been issued in the said proceedings. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta AIR 1952 SC 12.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant.

Admittedly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner/non-applicant No.1 herein had been dismissed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned. The dismissal of the writ petition was primarily on the ground that the petitioner had not sought the requisite permission from the Commissioner of Endowments. While dismissing the petition, however, it was made clear that the judgment and order would not come in the way of Commissioner of Endowments in considering the case of the petitioner in regard to the construction in question.

In our opinion, this certainly cannot be construed to be a direction post the dismissal of the writ petition but was only an observation which is clarificatory in nature as nothing would have taken away from the petitioner his right to move an appropriate formal application before the Commissioner seeking permission of the Commissioner to raise construction over the licensed premises. The permission was subsequently granted by the Commissioner of Endowments by virtue of order dated 08.02.2024.

In our opinion, the applicant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved in any way by the judgment and order impugned and therefore we do not find it a fit case where leave to prefer an appeal can be granted to the applicant.

For the reasons above, the application is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 and Writ Appeal also stand dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.