THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12285 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Simhadri, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent- temple. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the third respondent- temple, and to be a landless poor person. It is his case that he has been paying rents regularly to the third respondent-temple from the year 2006 onwards without any default; and the third respondent has also given receipts evidencing that he was paying rents regularly. The petitioner is aggrieved by the auction notification issued for conducting auction of leasehold rights of agricultural lands belonging to the third respondent-temple scheduled on 31.05.2010. It is the petitioner’s case that auction was not conducted on 31.05.2010, and that it has been adjourned to 02.06.2010. Sri G.Simhadri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the petitioner has been paying rents regularly, and has not violated any of the conditions of the lease, he should be granted extension of lease on payment of enhanced rent which this Court would deem fit to prescribe. It is not for this Court to prescribe the rent for grant of leasehold rights of lands belonging to the third respondent-temple. The statutory rules in force prescribe auction as the normal mode for grant of leasehold rights of agricultural lands. While the petitioner claims to be a landless poor person, the statutory rules require an application to be submitted to the competent authority who, on enquiry, is required to determine whether or not the petitioner is a landless poor person. It is not even the petitioner’s case that he has submitted an application to the competent authority seeking that he be declared a landless poor person. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner’s claim to be granted extension of lease does not merit acceptance. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to participate in the auction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.06.2010 usd