THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No.6049 of 2006 ORDER : The writ petition is misconceived. Sri Venu Gopal Swamy Vari Temple, Seethanagaram Post and Mandal, East Godavari District, owned an extent of Acs.05 – 29 cents of agricultural land in survey No.44 of Muggula Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. For the periods 1979 – 1980 to 1994 – 1995, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder at an auction for leasehold rights of the temple agricultural lands. He assumed tenancy of the lands on an annual rent of Rs.4,500/-. Again for the period 1992 -1993 to 1994 – 1995, for a period of three years. Thereafter, there was no lease in his favour. Therefore, his tenancy stood determined on cessation of the period of lease i.e., 1994 – 1995, but he continued in occupation of the land apparently because of complicity of the executive officer. Be that as it may. The State proposed to acquire the land for providing house-sites to weaker section persons. This was in the year 1999. But the process was aborted for reasons which are not germane for the purposes of this writ petition. Process of acquisition of the lands of the temple was initiated again in 2005. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the draft declaration under Section 6 were published simultaneously, invoking urgency and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent that 80% of the estimated compensation amount was also deposited with the land owner, i.e., Endowments Department. As is apparent from the counter-affidavits of the 2nd respondent and what is more surprising from the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent as well (the executive officer of the temple), the common fallacy harboured by these respondents is that the lands belong to the Endowments Department, not the temple. Assailing the acquisition proceedings of 2005 is the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming to be a tenant of the lands. As is apparent, the petitioner ceased to be a tenant in the year 1995 and, therefore, he is a mere encroacher. There is another development. The initial petitioner, having died, his son, Sri Geddam Koteswara Rao, has been brought on record as his legal representative of the 2nd petitioner by the orders dated 14-09-2010 in W.P.M.P. No.24254 of 2008. If the original petitioner, Sri Geddam Pedaveeranna (now deceased), was himself not a tenant on the date of institution of the writ petition the only status of the 2nd petitioner would be as the legal representative of an encroacher and it is in that status that the litigation is now pursued. On the aforesaid facts and scenario, the writ petition instituted in 2006 by Sri Geddam Pedaveeranna claiming to be a tenant is misconceived. On the death of the encroacher Sri Geddam Pedaveeranna, his son Sri Geddam Koteswara Rao has even less of a locus standi. For these reasons, the writ petition requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J February 03, 2011 ndr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No.6049 of 2006 February 03, 2011 ndr