IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18436 of 2007 Between: Sri Vakacherla Veeranjaneyulu S/o.Sri Venkateswara Rao Mandadam village, Thullur Mandal Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department Guntur 3 Mandadam Group of Temples, rep. by its Executive officer, Madadam village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District 4 Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam rep.by its Executive officer,Mandadam village Thullur Mandal, Guntur 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents proposing to conduct public auction of the dry lands of an extent of Ac.7.33 cents sitaute at S.No.138 Madadam village, Thullur Mandla, Guntur District to be held on 30.8.2007 at 11 A.M as arbitrary,illegal,high handed capricious and violate all cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the dry lands of an extent of Ac.7.33 cent situate at S.no.138 Mandadam village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District on 30.8.2007 at 11 A.M. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that in pursuance of the auction conducted on 30.08.2006, the 4th respondent-Devasthanam granted him lease over the dry land in an extent of about Ac.7.33 cents situated in Sy.No.138, Mandadam village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District in his favour for a period of three years. While so, the 3rd respondent, vide letter dated 30.11.2006, informed the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, has accorded permission to grant lease of the land in his favour only for a period of one year as they propose to auction the leasehold rights afresh. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 6.3.2007 requesting the authorities to extend the lease period. Now, it is his grievance that the 4th respondent, without considering his representation, got published a Notice dated 30.5.2007 proposing to auction the leasehold rights afresh on 30.8.2007 for further period of three years. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned Notice and to give appropriate directions to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed counters. The Executive Officer of the 4th respondent-Devasthanam, who swore in to the counter affidavit stated that his predecessor recommended to the Assistant Commissioner to approve the lease in favour of the petitioner is only for a period of one year as the amount fetched in the present auction is much less than the amount fetched in the previous auction. As the amount fetched in present auction is only Rs.73,000/- (amount offered by the petitioner), while in the previous auction, it was Rs.1,26,000/-, the Assistant Commissioner approved the lease in favour of the petitioner only for a period of one year i.e. 2006-2007, and accordingly, the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.11.2006. It is further stated that as per Condition No.1 of the Auction Notice dated 26.8.2006, the auction is subject to approval of the Commissioner of Endowments. Apart from this, as per Condition No.20 of the terms and conditions of the lease deed, the officials of the Endowments Department have the right to either increase or reduce the period of the lease, and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance for approving the lease in his favour only for a period of one year. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. This Court, on 29.8.2007, while admitting the writ petition, directed that the auction proposed to be held on 30.08.2007 in pursuance of the impugned Notice, may go on, however, the same shall not be confirmed. The 3rd respondent filed a petition in W.V.M.P. No.2236 of 2007 seeking vacation of the order, dated 29.08.2007 passed by this Court. Since the grant of lease for a period of one year, as per the terms and conditions of the auction, is subject to approval of the Commissioner of Endowments, and having regard to the fact that the power to reduce or increase the period of lease vests in the Commissioner, and inasmuch as it is stated that the amount fetched in the auction was far less than the amount fetched for the previous years, no exception can be taken to the action of the Assistant Commissioner in granting lease in favour of the petitioner only for a period of one year, though the auction notice was issued for leasing the land for three years, particularly when the same was taken in public interest and to protect the revenues of the 4th respondent- Devasthanam. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 20th July, 2009 bcj