IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 870 of 1998 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/04/1998 in WP NO : 5112 OF 1992 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Satyamsetti Chandra Rao, Son of Subba Rao, Resident of Addampalli, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd, by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department , Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 The Managing Trustee, Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple, Addampalli, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.A. No. 870 of 1998 JUDGMENT: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 22.4.1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 5112 of 1992. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The case of the appellant is that he is the cultivating tenant of the land ad measuring Ac.3-17 cents in R.S. No. 61/3C of Addampalli village which belongs to Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple, Addampalli. The said land was proposed for acquisition for providing house sites for weaker sections. It is further stated that without following the procedure under Section 80 of the Land Acquisition Act the land belonging to the Temple was alienated and the valuable right conferred on the appellant as the cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 is defeated by the impugned sale. On the other hand, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the land in question was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections vide E.G. Collector’s Ref.L2/12215/91 dated 30.3.1992. The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad has also gave his consent to the Collector vide Proceedings Ref.M/2542/92 dated 25.3.1992 and 27.3.1992. As there are no suitable lands in the village to be acquired, the temple lands in S.No.61/3C of Addampalli village were selected for acquisition for providing house sites to the needy poor. There is a prescribed procedure for purchase of the endowments lands and the authorities have followed the due procedure in taking possession of the aforesaid land and the transaction was duly registered. It is also stated that the appellant is a chronic defaulter in paying the rent for the years 1997-98 to 2000-21. After perusing the material available on record, it is noticed that though the learned counsel for the petitioner – appellant in the writ petition has contended that the procedure envisaged under Section 80 of the Act was not followed by the authorities, no such ground was taken in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the respondents cannot be taken by surprise by raising such contention at the time of argument. There is also sufficient material to show that the Commissioner for Endowments has accorded permission for alienation of the land in favour of the State and it is brought to the notice of this Court that the same has become final. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge, in our considered view, is perfectly on proper lines and therefore the same needs no interference by us. We find no merit in this writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 15-04-2008. MVB.