IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19279 of 2008 Between: 1 P.Raghunath Reddy S/o. Dharma Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-9, Veepanagandla Village, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 P.Harinath Reddy S/o. Dharma Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-7, Veepanagandla Village, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 P.Sainath Reddy S/o. Dharma Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-7/C, Veepanagandla Village, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 Smt. P.Kistamma W/o. Hussain Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-1/C, Veepanagandla Village, Mahaboobnagar District. 5 P.Sarva Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy R/o. H.No. 6-187, Veepanagandla Village, Mahaboobnagar District. 6 P.Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy R/o. H.No. 6-187/B, Veepanagandla Village, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Sri. Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Manager, Veepanagandla, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Auction Notice in Lr.No. S.C.S.T./2008, dated 22-08-2008 proposing to conduct auction of the lease hold rights of the lands situated in SY.Nos. 697, 699 and 700 admeasuring Ac. 16.19 gts., Ac. 11.30 gts. and Ac. 1.03 gts. respectively of Weepanagandla Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos. 14982/2005 and W.P.No. 16503/2005 and violative of Principles of natural Justice and consequentially to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of ht epetitioenrs over their rrespective extents of lands situated in Sy.Nos.697, 699 and 700 of Weepanagandla Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district for the agricultural year 2008-09 and to pass such other order or orders as this Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: CH.SATISH KUMAR,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS,TELANGA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19279 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are in possession of about Ac.25.00 of land, in all, belonging to Sri Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Veepanagandla Village, Mahaboobnagaar District, 1st respondent herein. Their earlier lease stood terminated by operation of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). To avail the beneﬁt under sub-Section (2) thereof, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, 2nd respondent herein, with a prayer to declare them as landless poor. Initially, the applications were ordered and thereafter, through separate orders, dated 06.07.2005, they were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners ﬁled W.P.No.14982 of 2005 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was directed to be considered afresh by the 2nd respondent. Status quo was directed to be maintained, pending determination of the status of the petitioners. The Manager of the Temple issued public auction notice, dated 22.08.2008, proposing to conduct the auction of leasehold rights, in respect to the land held by the Temple. The petitioners challenge the said notification. Sri M.Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of the petitioners for being declared as landless poor is pending adjudication before the 2nd respondent and the impugned notiﬁcation is in violation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.14982 of 2005. He contends that even otherwise, the petitioners are prepared to continue as tenants by paying the reasonable rent, that may be ﬁxed by respondents 1 and 2. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submit that the claim of the petitioners, on remand made by this Court, was rejected by the 2nd respondent in June 2008 itself. They contend that the petitioners did not pay the lease amount for the last agricultural year. They further submit that the auction is being conducted, as required under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioners do not seem to be aware of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in June 2008, rejecting their claim for declaration that they are landless poor. Therefore, the impugned auction notice cannot be said to be in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.14982 of 2005. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the rejection of their claim, they have to avail the remedy of appeal before respondent No.3. The right of the 1st respondent, to put the leasehold rights in respect of the lands, to auction, cannot be denied. Auction is the known method, for ascertaining the rent and awarding the leasehold rights. It is represented that the petitioners have raised diﬀerent crops on the lands in question. They can participate in the auction and continue as lessees for the next term of three years or one year, as the case may be, by paying the amount, that may be fetched in the auction. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that- (a) the impugned notice, dated 22.08.2008 is upheld and it shall be open to the 1st respondent to proceed with the auction; and the period of lease shall be mentioned as three years; (b) it shall be open to the petitioners to participate in the auction. In case, they emerge as the highest bidders, the 1st respondent shall grant them fresh lease on fresh terms, for a period of three years, subject to approval by the competent authority, which, in turn, shall be without prejudice to their right to claim the status of landless poor before the 3rd respondent; (c) in case, the petitioners do not emerge as highest bidders, it shall be open to them to oﬀer the highest bid, either for three years or one year, and continue as lessees, by paying the corresponding amount. If they do not oﬀer to pay the highest bid, even for one year, it shall be open to the 1st respondent to get the crop harvested, realize the rent, deduct the expenditure, and refund the balance, if any, to the petitioners. (d) the 1st respondent shall put the amount, that is fetched in the lease, year after year, in a ﬁxed deposit and utilize the interest, which accrues thereon, to be drawn, once in three months. The principal amount shall be utilized only for permanent works, with the approval of the Trust Board and authorities under the Act. (e) in case, the petitioners present appeals against the order of the 2nd respondent, within three (3) weeks from today, before the 3rd respondent, they shall be entertained, without raising any objection as to the limitation; and the adjudication shall be conﬁned to the claim of the petitioners as land less poor. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 05.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19279 of 2008 Date: 05.09.2008 JSU