THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.8350 of 2010 Between: Paladugu Devaraj PETITIONER And 1. The Commissioner, Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for respondents 1 & 2: G.P. for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri V.T.M. Prasad Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at this stage. This writ petition has been filed challenging the notification dated 25.03.2010 proposing to auction the leasehold rights in respect of an extent of Ac.2.00 of land situated in Sy.No.181 of Badapuram village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. The case of the petitioner is that he has been in possession of the said land for over 45 years and cultivating the same by paying lease amounts to the 3rd respondent. He claims to be a landless poor person and is entitled to have leasehold rights as per the provisions of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the Act’). Since the 3rd respondent has proposed to auction the leasehold rights without considering the case of the petitioner for lease, he has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit, stating that the lease granted to the petitioner expired long back. Therefore, a notice under Rule 5(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Rules, 2003 was issued on 14.04.2003 informing that the lease has been cancelled as per the provisions of Section 82 of the Act and calling upon him to handover possession of the land. It is further stated that the petitioner has not been recognized as landless poor person as he failed to file appropriate application in that regard before the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation as an encroacher of the said land. It is further stated that although auction was conducted on 15.04.2010, the same was not confirmed due to the pendency of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner did not receive any notice said to have been issued under Rule 5(1) of the said Rules. I am not inclined to consider the matter on merits as to whether the petitioner remained in possession of the land as an ecroacher or otherwise. Even though the 3rd respondent has stated that the petitioner has been put on notice issued under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, no material has been placed before this Court to show service of the said notice on the petitioner. In the circumstances, unless the procedure contemplated under law is followed, the petitioner is not liable to be evicted. In the circumstances as above, since the petitioner has been admittedly in possession of the land, this writ petition is disposed of directing that he shall not be evicted except by following due process of law. It is clarified that the competent authority is entitled to serve notice on the petitioner as per Rule 5(1) of the Rules and evict him in accordance with law. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 2nd August, 2011. Js.