IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 22439 of 2005 Between: Chavali Venkata Subbarao and 4 others …PETITIONERS And: Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the land of an extent of Ac.21.00 in Sy.Nos.468, 516 and 517 situated in Chavali village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District, without following the due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. It is stated that the petitioners are the Archakas of Sri Valeswaraswamyvari Temple, Chavali village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District and the Temple got Ac.21.00 of land. There are six Archakas who have been rendering Archakatvam in the 4th respondent temple. Some of the share holders have filed O.S.No.101 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali for partition and possession of the land and rendering of accounts, profits, costs etc., but the said suit was dismissed on 26.10.1991, holding that the dispute cannot be decided by the Civil Court, but it should be enquired into by the 3rd respondent under Section 87 (1) (a) of Act 30/1987. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent passed an order in Rc.No.A4/5393/93, dated 16.09.1993 holding that 14 individuals of six families are entitled each for 1/6th share, and the 14 members of six families are entitled to enjoy the income on the above land for rendering Archakatvam service. The said orders have become final. While so, some of the tenants have filed A.T.C.No.21/1984 on the file of the Special Officer under Tenancy Cases cum Principal District Munsif, Tenali against the Archakas, seeking declaration that they are the cultivating tenants in respect of the said lands, and the said ATC was dismissed on 26.04.1993. Against which, the said tenants filed A.T.A.No.38/1993 on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, Guntur, which was also dismissed, and against the same, they have filed C.R.P.No.2652/2000 before this Court and this Court dismissed the said CRP by its order dated 19.02.2003, observing that in fact the said temple lands were auctioned by the temple in favour of the highest bidders and they are not the cultivating tenants, and therefore, there is no any material to show that they are the cultivating tenants, the Tenancy Act has no application to the endowment lands, and therefore, the proceedings under the Tenancy Act are not maintainable, and accordingly, the CRP was dismissed. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the temple lands, but without any justification whatsoever and in spite of repeated circulars issued from time to time not to dispossess them unless the salaries are paid to them, are not being followed and they are obviously sought to be dispossessed without being any notice. Admittedly, the temple lands are being auctioned from time to time and in fact, some of the tenants filed O.S.No.399 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali against the auction purchasers in respect of the land in question, admeasuring Ac.21.00 and the said suit was dismissed by judgment dated 28.10.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed A.S.No.128 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, which was erroneously allowed, against which, the temple filed S.A.No.1457 of 2004 which was allowed by this Court by order dated 30.06.2005, holding that there is no evidence to show that the tenants are the landless poor and they are refused as landless poor, and therefore, they cannot be permitted as landless poor and they have not made any application claiming the status as landless poor and Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) applies to such of the properties, which are not covered by Section 82, and when the statue brings about an automatic termination and when the provision was upheld by the Supreme Court, the tenants are not entitled for any injunction, and accordingly, the Second Appeal was allowed. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments, on instructions submits that in fact, earlier the lands in question were auctioned on 14.07.2000 in favour of the highest bidders and placed the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.C1/34697/2000, dated 17.08.2000 to that effect. He further submits that subsequently, the lands of the temple were auctioned and the latest auction proceedings of the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.No.B2/697-1/2005, dated 08.09.2005 was also placed on record showing that the said lands in question were auctioned on 08.08.2005 for the lease period 2005-06 to 2007-08 in favour of four highest bidders. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 03.11.2005 Dsr