IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2749 of 2001 Between: G.Krishnamoorthy S/o Siddappa R/o Kurabalakota (Village & Post & Mandal), Madanapalli Tq, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The COmmissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2 Sri Kodandarana Swamy Temple, Devasthanam, Kurabalakota, Rep by its Dharmakartha Sri.K.B.Lakshmana Rao S/o Bhujanga Rao, Hindu, Age: 45 R/o Kurabala Kota. 3 Setti Ramalingaiah S/o Dasanna R/o A.V.Naidu Colony, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. impleaded as per Court Order in WPMP10768/2001 dt:4.7.02 .....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 aWrit order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofd WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declare the action of the respondents issusing Notiﬁcation Dt: 2.2.2001 in pursuances of the proceedings of the 1st respondents vide Rc.No..M3/12347/95, dt: 30.8.1999 published in Eenadu Chittoor Daily Edition on 4.2.2001 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to forbear from the selling the lands being cultivated by the petitioner situated in Sy.No.693/1, admeasuring 1.72 cents of Korbalakota Village & Mandal, Chittoor District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.PRAMOD Counsel for the Respondent : MR.K.V.N.BHUPAL FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.2749 of 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to forbear the respondents from selling the lands being cultivated by the petitioner of an extent of Ac.1-72 cents in Korbalakota Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the 2nd respondent – temple. On the ground that he is a protected tenant and cannot be evicted, and relying on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, he ﬁled the present writ petition. Sri N.Pramod, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would fairly state that since the Division Bench judgment has subsequently been overruled by the Supreme Court, the resultant consequence is that no tenant can claim protection of his tenancy over endowment lands. Learned Counsel would, however, request this Court to direct the 1 st respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for being sold the land under his cultivation at the prevailing market price. Whether or not the land should be sold is for the 1st respondent to decide and not for this Court to direct. No such relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted. Suffice to observe that it is always open to the petitioner to make a request to the authorities concerned and that this order shall not preclude them from examining such a request in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________ 5-11-2008 asp