M Venkatareddy S/O Savi Reddy vs The Zilla Panchayat on 9 June, 2008

that the 2"' respondent. in law, in required to  '  t 

pubiic auction its pmper&~s to

otherwise and not enter into 1 V.

person or authority either to

4. Time all the
authorities of to follow the
rule of A’ to cvmy
citizen to the maximum mvenus:
whiic letting éizt its lease.

the 234 mwpondent has mnewad the
in favour of 3″‘ mspondmt without

auction of the leasehold rights. This is

H of law and therefore is unacceptable.

The representation ofthc petitioner at Annexun: D

éated 6.4.2001 having remained without a zesponse from

the 21″‘ respondent, deserves a direction for *

and not a direction as sought for in the 1 ‘”

In the result, the writ petition _ – ,3 ‘ ‘fig

the 2″‘ respondent to consider
Azmexure D and peas orders with
law. in any event, — from the
date of receipt of V

as