THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20262 of 2010 Dated 14th February, 2011 Between: Chinthoti Prudvi Rao and another …Petitioners And Sri Anjaneyavari Temple, Velaldi Village, Chanderlpadu Mandal, Krishna District, rep.by its Managing Trustee and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri V.T.M.Prasad Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P.Prabhakara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ agricultural operations for the year 2010-11 in respect of Acs.10.00 and Acs.5.45 cents of land in R.S.No.51 of Veladi Village, Chanderlapadu Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, representing respondent No.1. The petitioners held lease in respect of the above-mentioned agricultural land from respondent No.1 for the period of 2007-10. It is their case that on the eve of expiry of the said lease period, the alleged founder family member has extended the lease by one more year and that despite the said proceedings, respondent No.1 is seeking to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the land. At the hearing, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, stated that the alleged extension of lease is contrary to Rule 8 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules’). I have perused the said Rule. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules provides that no lease shall be extended for a period of three years. Under sub-rule (2)(a) of the said Rule, where it is proposed to grant a lease for a period exceeding the limit specified in sub-rule (1), the Executive Authority shall obtain prior permission of the Commissioner even before causing publication of the notice under Rule 11 of the Rules. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that such permission was obtained by the founder family member before granting alleged extension. Therefore, the petitioners have not derived any right to continue in possession of the property beyond the lease period. In this view of the matter, the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. However, having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a standing crop exists over the land in question, the petitioners are permitted to harvest the same on or before 31.03.2011, failing which, the Inspector of Endowments, Nandigama, In-charge of respondent No.1-temple, shall be free to recover possession of the land without any further notice to the petitioners. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 17.08.2010, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.25734 of 2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.25734 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.3826 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th February, 2011 VGB