THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.12024 of 2002 DATED: 22.07.2010 Between: Achanta Ratnabhai and another .. Petitioners And Sri Uma Someswara Swamy Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, B. Savaram, Razole Mandal, E.G. District. .. Respondent ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 04.06.2002 issued by the respondent Devasthanam. It appears, the 1st petitioner was the cultivating tenant of the land in an extent of Ac.7.95 cents in Sy.No.187 of B. Savaram Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to the respondent Devasthanam. The impugned notice reads that the 1st petitioner fell in arrears of maktha payable at 48 bags of paddy for the first crop and 16 bags for the second crop, that she subleased the land to one Katta Srinu and Achanta Pulla Rao, contrary to law, and that the lease in her favour already expired. Therefore, she was informed under the impugned notice that the possession of the subject land was taken by the Devasthanam and the leasehold rights of the same would be auctioned and that she was also warned of criminal action, in case of her entering the subject land. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st petitioner filed the present writ petition, stating that she neither committed default in payment of rents nor subleased the land to third parties, as alleged in the impugned notice. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st petitioner died and thereupon the 2nd petitioner, claiming to be her son, came on record as her legal representative. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 04.07.2002, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner was prepared to pay the maktha of 48 bags for the first crop and 16 bags for the second crop and the arrears, if any, granted interim stay of auction of the land in question, on condition of the 1st petitioner depositing initially a sum of Rs.10,000/- and also the maktha of 48 bags for the first crop and 16 bags for the second crop, on or before 30.09.2002. The respondent filed detailed counter-affidavits, indicating the outstanding rents payable by the 1st petitioner and it is stated that, despite repeated reminders, the 1st petitioner has not paid those outstanding rents and on the other hand, she subleased the land to third parties, for higher rates of rent, which is contrary to law. Therefore, following the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, the impugned notice was issued to her and thereafter possession of the land was taken over by the Devasthanam and open auction was also conducted on 26.06.2002. It is further stated that the said auction conducted on 26.06.2002 fetched a highest offer of maktha of 140 bags of paddy per annum, viz., 105 bags for first crop and 35 bags for the second crop, whereas the 1st petitioner has been paying only 64 bags per annum and that too irregularly, and the 1st petitioner, suppressing all these facts, filed the present writ petition. It is also stated that the respondent institution issued a notice in Form-1 as per G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.03.2003, directing the petitioner to handover the possession of the subject land within 30 days of receipt of notice, as all leases stood cancelled as per Section 82 of the Endowments Act. Subsequently, the respondent has also filed an additional counter-affidavit, stating that the 1st petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed by this Court in the interim orders dated 04.07.2002 and fell in arrears of maktha of 139 bags. The 2nd petitioner, who came on record as the legal representative of the 1st petitioner, filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made by the respondent in the counters as well as the additional counter-affidavit, and stating that makthas are being paid regularly without fail. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. The 1st petitioner was the cultivating tenant of the subject land belonging to the temple. According to the respondent, the 1st petitioner was chronic defaulter in payment of rents and she subleased the land to third parties and in view of the same and as also the lease in her favour expired, the impugned notice was issued to her. It is also the case of the respondent that even the condition imposed by this Court on 04.07.2002 while granting interim stay of auction, for deposit of maktha, is not complied with by the 1st petitioner. Except stating in his reply-affidavit that there is no default in payment of rents, the 2nd petitioner did not produce any material before this Court to prove the payment of rents. His reply-affidavit is also silent about the allegation of the 1st petitioner subleasing the land to third parties. In the absence of any material being produced to controvert the serious allegations that the 1st petitioner is a chronic defaulter and she subleased the land to third parties and that she did not even comply with the interim orders of this Court, this Court cannot pass any orders much less the orders as sought by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when the lease in favour of the 1st petitioner admittedly expired. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 22nd July, 2010 IBL