THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13532 of 2010, WRIT PETITION No.13591 of 2010, WRIT PETITION No.13594 of 2010, AND WRIT PETITION No.13611 of 2010. Dated: .06.2010 In W.P.No.13532 of 2010: Ramreddi Ramachandrudu … Petitioner Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others. … Respondents In W.P.No.13591 of 2010: Ramreddi Vishwerrao … Petitioner Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others. … Respondents In W.P.No.13594 of 2010: Bathina Satyavathi and others … Petitioners Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others. … Respondents A N D In W.P.No.13611 of 2010: Sathi Satyanarayana and others … Petitioners Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13532 of 2010, WRIT PETITION No.13591 of 2010, WRIT PETITION No.13594 of 2010, AND WRIT PETITION No.13611 of 2010. COMMON ORDER : All these writ petitions are filed with a common prayer to set aside the auction notice dated 1.6.2010 issued by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, M.S.N. Charities, Jagannathapuram, Kakinada, East Godavari District, under which the leasehold rights of the 13 items of land belonging to the 3rd respondent were put to auction for the period from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013. The petitioners in these writ petitions claim to be the lessees in respect of different extents of land situated in Sy.No.99, Sy.No.121/1, Sy.No.145 and Sy.No.38/1 & Sy.No.99/1 respectively. Though the period of lease in their favour expired, it is claimed that they are continuing in possession and enjoyment of the leased lands on payment of the agreed rents. It is also claimed that the petitioners are small farmers and their applications to declare them as landless poor persons are pending before the Commissioner of Endowments Department, Hyderabad. It is further stated that initially the 3rd respondent issued auction notice dated 4.5.2010 proposing to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights in respect of 15 items, however the auction was not conducted on the date fixed and subsequently the impugned notice dated 1.6.2010 has been published proposing to conduct auction in respect of 13 items only. It is contended that the action of the 3rd respondent in deleting two items of the lands in the impugned auction notice dated 1.6.2010 and proposing to conduct auction only in respect of the petitioners’ lands is arbitrary and actuated by mala fides. It is also contended that the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct auction without taking steps to evict the petitioners from the land in their occupation is illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Even according to the petitioners, the lease in their favour expired long back. As a matter of fact, the particulars of the lease in favour of the petitioners or the renewals said to have been granted by the 3rd respondent are not furnished by the petitioners and no material could be placed before this Court even to show that they are in possession as on today. Hence the petitioners’ claim that they are continuing in possession by virtue of the renewal of lease granted in their favour cannot be accepted. Consequently the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned auction notice proposing to grant fresh leasehold rights cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. The further contention that the 3rd respondent’s action in confining the auction to 13 items instead of 15 items as proposed in the earlier auction notice dated 4.5.2010 amounts to arbitrary exercise of power is also untenable. The mala fides sought to be attributed to the 3rd respondent on the basis of vague allegations in the writ petitions cannot be accepted so as to grant the relief as prayed for. For the aforesaid reasons, all these Writ Petitions which are devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.06.2010 gbs