IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10921 of 2008 Between: 1 Bandi Naguru Babu, S/o. B. Subbanna, R/o. Vankamdinne Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 Shaik Babu, S/o. Umar Saheb, R/o. Vankamdinne Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Sri Kanchipalle Veerabadra Swami Temple, Vankamdinne Village, Sirvel Mandal, \ Kurnool district, Rep. by Executive Officer. 2 The Chairman Trust Board, Sri Kanchipalle, Veerabadra Swami Temple, Vankamdinne Village, sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 The Endowment Inspector, Banaganapalli, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in proceeding to conduct auction for Sri Kanchipalle Veerabadra Swami Temple lands in the possession of the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 5-99, 4-14 cents in Sy.No.s 71/1 and 71/3 respectively of Vanikamdinne Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool district, even though petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying the lease amount every year and contrary to mandatory provisions of Sec. 83 & 84 of the Act, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art. 14 19, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid temple lands by the petitioners by collecting lease amount as paid for earlier years. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: V.T.M.PRASAD, SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP for ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners are lessees in respect of about Acs.10.00 of land in survey No.71/1 and 71/3 of Vanikamdinne Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District, owned by Sri Kanchipalle Veerabadra Swami Temple of that village. The lease is said to have expired two years ago. The temple authorities are taking steps to conduct auction to grant leasehold rights in respect of the said land. The petitioners contend that the respondents are under obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), for removal of encroachers, and the steps taken by them straight away to put the leasehold rights to auction, cannot be sustained in law. They placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9014 of 2008, dated 23.04.2008. Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No.3. It is, no doubt, true that it is open to the authorities under the Act to initiate steps for removal of encroachers. Much, however, would depend upon the nature of the properties and the rights held by the persons in possession of the land. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are lessees for the land, referred to above, for a specific period. After expiry of the term of the lease, the petitioners do not have any right to continue in possession of the land. The mere fact that they were in possession for some years after expiry of the lease, does not confer any right upon them. If the respondents are required to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, after expiry of every term of lease and for every item of property held by an institution, enormous loss would result in them. It is for the concerned authorities to decide as to whether the proceedings for removal of encroachments must be initiated or to conduct the auction for grant of leasehold rights from time to time. Once it has emerged that the petitioners are undisputedly the lessees and the period of lease had expired, no exception can be taken to the steps taken by the respondents to put the leasehold rights to auction. This much, however, can be said that it shall be open to the petitioners to participate in the auction and being the existing lessees, may be after expiry thereof, they can even express their willingness to continue as lessees by offering the lease amount that is quoted by the highest bidder, if they did not incur any disqualification. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.22.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note:Furnish C.C. in two days. (B/o) GJ/KDL