HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.17214 of 2011 Date: 30-6-2011 Between K.Venkata Chalapati … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.17214 of 2011 Order: The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following relief: “To issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering representation dated 29-11- 2010 of the petitioner to sell the site measuring 1050 sq. ft. in T.S.No.3347 of Doddapuram Street, Tirupati, Chittoor district on payment of market value.” 2. The 3rd respondent-Trust owns 14040 sq. feet of land situated in T.S.No.3347 (Door No.156/B), Theerthakatta Street, Tirupati. The then Trustee of the 3rd respondent leased out an extent of 116.67 sq. yards on the said site to one B.Janardhana Naidu for a period of 20 years from 31-3-1982 under a registered lease deed. The petitioner is said to have taken the said site from the said Janardhana Naidu as a lessee and constructed a building. After the demise of the said Janardhana Naidu, it appears that the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments and obtained an order dated 25-5-2005 in Proceedings No.M2/18502/2005 permitting the Executive Officer of the Trust to sell the site to him. However, by a subsequent order dated 28-7-2010 in Proceedings Rc.No.N1/54186/2009 the said order was recalled as the sale directed to be effected in favour of the petitioner was not found to be in the interest of the institution and that he was only a sub-tenant. This order became final. 3. The petitioner again approached the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Trust by his representation dated 29-11-2010 seeking renewal of lease at least for a period of 3 years on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- contending that he has purchased the said site bona fide and constructed a building by spending huge amounts. However, the said representation of the petitioner did not find favour with the Executive Officer. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. The 3rd respondent-Trust filed a counter opposing the relief sought for by the petitioner. It is stated that the lease granted in favour of B.Janardhana Naidu expired by 14-02-2002 and the petitioner, who claims to be the sub-tenant of the said person, does not have any right to be in possession of the subject site. The subject property is very valuable property, which is fetching huge amounts. The petitioner has sublet certain shops constructed on the site and collecting huge amounts towards rents. The 3rd respondent-Trust is deprived of its legitimate income. Even though earlier it was decided to sell the property in favour of the petitioner by the order of the Commissioner dated 25-5-2005, on reconsideration, the said order was recalled by order dated 28-7-2010 keeping in view the interest of the institution. The 3rd respondent is not willing to part away with the property nor is prepared to recognize the petitioner as a tenant. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was never granted any leasehold rights in his favour. He was inducted into the land by the erstwhile tenant whose lease also expired by 14-02-2002. There is no right created in favour of the petitioner either by recognizing him as a tenant or by executing any other instrument. The order of the Commissioner dated 25-5-2005, pursuant to which the subject site was directed to be sold in his favour, was also recalled and the same has become final. 7. In the light of these facts, the petitioner does not have any enforceable right against the 3rd respondent-Trust either for seeking sale or lease of the subject site. In this view of the matter, no writ can be issued against the respondents directing them to sell the property in favour of the petitioner. This Court cannot compel a person to part away with his property without there being an obligation on his part to do so. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has invested huge amounts and developed the property. The petitioner is willing to pay considerable amount towards lease. He, therefore, invokes equity jurisdiction of this Court for a direction to the respondents to accept the said proposal. 9. I am not persuaded to accept the said proposal in the light of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.866, Rev. (Endowments I) Dept., dated 08-8-2003, which require granting of leasehold rights only by way of public auction. Therefore, this Court, in the light of the said provision, cannot show any equities. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 30th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.17214 of 2011 30th June, 2011.