THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 24420, 25061 and 26045 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since these three writ petitions are inter-connected and relate to the same subject land, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed in W.P. No.25061 of 2010. Initially, Smt. Palivela Rajya Lakshmi filed W.P. No. 25061 of 2010, contending that she came into possession of the land in Sy. No. 483 to an extent of Acs. 5.87 cents of Medapi Village, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District, belonging to Sri Kasi Visweshwara Swamy Temple, Peddavaram Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, as a lessee, and that even though her lease period expired, she has continuing in the land by paying rents regularly, and it is her grievance that the respondent authorities without following the due procedure, are trying to dispossess her from the said land. One Sri. G. Venkata Narayana, who is respondent No.5, filed caveat in the above writ petition, and in the affidavit filed in support of the caveat petition, he alleged that even though the lease period granted in favour of Palivela Rajya Lakshmi expired, still she is continuing in possession of the subject land. Having admitted her possession of the subject land in his caveat, respondent No.5 filed W.P. No. 24420 of 2010, inter alia contending that he stood as highest bidder in the auction conducted in respect of the subject land for the year 2010-2011 and possession of the subject land was also delivered to him. That the petitioner, who was granted leasehold rights in respect of the subject land, for the years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, in spite of expiry of the lease period, is interfering with his lawful possession of the subject land and therefore he is unable to cultivate the subject land. When the said W.P. No. 24420 of 2010 filed by respondent No.5, came up for hearing on 04.10.2010, as no instructions were reported by the Standing Counsel for Endowments in spite of granting time, this Court granted interim directions to the authorities to permit respondent No.5, who is the highest bidder, to cultivate the subject land. Thereafter, both the writ petitions came to be listed, and this Court on 08.10.2010 ordered status quo to be maintained with regard to the subject land, pending further orders. While so, the petitioner filed another W.P. No. 26045 of 2010, contending that no public auction was conducted in respect of the subject land for the year 2010-2011, and that the auction alleged to have been conducted by the respondent authorities, in which respondent No.5 was said to be the highest bidder, is only a fake auction, that she is still continuing in possession of the subject land and paying the rents, which is admitted to by respondent No.5 in the caveat petition filed by him. This Court, having taken notice of the stand taken by respondent No.5 in the caveat filed by him in W.P. No. 25061 of 2010 which runs contrary to the stand taken by him in his W.P. No. 24420 of 2010, passed orders dated 02.11.2010 in W.P. No. 26045 of 2010, directing the appearance of the respondent-authorities before this Court and further directing the parties to maintain status quo till such time. Pursuant to the above order, respondent No.2, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, filed counter- affidavit in W.P. Nos. 25061 and 26045 of 2010, stating that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, was only for three years, which expired by 2009-2010, and as such, she has no right whatsoever, to continue in possession of the said land, after expiry of the lease. He further stated that the executive officer of the temple has not obtained any permission from him, for continuing the petitioner in possession of the subject land after expiry of lease, and that he neither intimated about the alleged auction in favour of respondent No.5 nor sought for deputation of any departmental officer, for supervising the alleged auction, as required under law. He further stated that no information is available with him, either as regards the alleged continuation of the petitioner in the subject land or about conducting of alleged auction for leasing out the leasehold rights of the subject land, in which respondent No.5 is said to be the highest bidder. He lastly submitted that even if auction for leasing out the leasehold rights of the land is conducted, the same, having not been conducted in accordance with the rules, is null and void. On the other hand, the temple filed counter-affidavit, stating that after publication of auction notice and also advertising by beat of tom- tom, auction was conducted on 10.06.2010, for auctioning the leasehold rights of the subject land for the period 2010-2011, and in the auction conducted, respondent No.5 stood as highest bidder. Pursuant thereto, possession of the land was handed over to respondent No.5 on 06.10.2010, under a panchanama. It is further stated that the receipt produced by the petitioner, to show that she is continuing in possession of the subject land by paying rents, is a forged one, and cannot be given any credence, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that there is standing crop in the subject land, which is raised by the petitioner. Since there is standing crop in the subject land, the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties agreed for disposal of the writ petitions with the following directions: The petitioner be permitted to harvest the crop raised by her in the subject land, and after harvesting the crop, she shall handover possession of the vacant land to the temple by the end of January 2011. Since respondent No.2 contends that the auction conducted by the temple, in which respondent No.5 stood as highest bidder, was conducted without his permission and in contravention of the rules, respondent No.2 shall consider the ratification or cancellation of the same, after issuing notice to respondent No.5, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. If respondent No.5 suffers any adverse order, then he is at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 26th November, 2010 IBL