IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15441 of 2005 Between: 1 Kunisetti Gangireddy S/o. Darayya, R/o. Mallavaram, East Godavari District, 2 P. Naga Urmila Devi, W/o. P. Veerabadra Reddy, R/o. Mallavaram, East Godavari District, 3 J. Rama Lakshmi W/o. T. Sesha Reddy R/o. Mallavaram, East Godavari District, 4 K. Seetha Ratnam, W/o. K. Rami Reddy R/o. Mallavaram, East Godavari District, 5 A. Surya Chakram, W/o. A. Adinarayana R/o. Mallavaram, East Godavari District, 6 T. Satyanarayanamma @ Chantemma, W/o. T. Raja Kumara Swamy, R/o. Mallavaram, East Godavari District, ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, 2 Sri Kukkuteswara Swamy Devasthanam, Pithapuram, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:Sri Deepak Misra for Sri Koka Raghava Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: A.G.P for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt M.Vinobha Devi The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in deciding the petitioners’ application, on merits, regarding their status as landless poor persons entitled to the benefits under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the grievance of the petitioners is that though their family had been in possession and enjoyment of Acs.5.04 cents and Acs.4.78 cents in Survey Nos.188/1 and 188/2 respectively of Ramanakkapeta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District as lessees of respondent No.2, and their application for recognizing them as landless poor persons is pending, the respondents had been attempting to lease out the property to third parties. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is averred that the application filed by petitioner No.1 was rejected on 03-06-2005 and that after the passing of the said order, auction was conducted on 16-07-2005, wherein the husband of petitioner No.5 also participated. It is further averred that the auction was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder, namely; Sri Bejawada Chander Rao, which was also approved by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments on 19-07-2005. At the hearing, on 14-07-2008, Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel representing Sri Koka Raghava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that while the plea of respondent No.1 was that the petitioners’ application was rejected on 03-06-2005, the petitioners received notice dated 01-07-2005 fixing enquiry to 13-07-2005. In the wake of this submission, I summoned the record, which is produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and he explained with reference to the record that initially the application filed by petitioner No.1 was taken on file as M.A.No.567 of 2005 and the same was disposed of on 03-06-2005 by rejecting his claim. He further stated that petitioner No.1 along with five other persons claiming to be the legal heirs of Dorayya filed another application, which was registered as M.A.No.748 of 2005 and the enquiry into which was fixed for 13-07-2005 by issuing notice dated 01-07-2005. I have perused the record, which contains both the orders. Therefore, I am convinced that respondent No.1 had considered the two separate applications of petitioner No.1 and other legal heirs of Dorayya by two separate orders and rejected their claims. The file produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader also reveals that the appeal filed against order dated 13-07-2005 by petitioner No.1 and other legal heirs of Dorayya was dismissed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada by order dated 14-10-2005. In view of the above, the petitioners cannot claim any legal right to hold the land as lessees. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.23323 of 2005 is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th July, 2008 vrn