IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21071 of 2007 Between: Mummuna Gangaiah S/o.Late Nookalu R/o.Thummadapalem ,Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Urban mandal, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, Sri Varahalaxmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Simhachalam 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Endowments Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Chinnagadili Mandal visakhapatnam District 5 The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority rep.by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in seeking to take forcible possession of land of an extent of Ac.10.00 cts in Sy.No.275/B in Adivaramvillage, Chingadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam district as illegal, unauthorized and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to receive the amounts as per their LR.No.Sr.No.6613/2006 dated 26.8.2006 and regularize the land by issuing the land regularization certiﬁcate to an extent of Ac.10.00 cts in Sy.No.275/B in Adivaram village, Chingadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: The paternal grand father of the petitioner was a lessee in respect of Acs.10.00 of land in survey No.275/B of Adivivaram Village, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, belonging to Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam (for short ‘the Devasthanam’), the first respondent herein. The petitioner states that the land was part of an estate and his rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”), are yet to be determined. He contends that acting on G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000, the Devasthanam issued a letter, dated 26.08.2006, requiring the petitioner to deposit the cost of the land and even while the proceedings are pending, he is sought to be evicted. The petitioner had urged other contentions also. The Devasthanam ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating inter alia that the alleged lease in favour of the paternal grand father of the petitioner stood terminated by operation of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987. It is pleaded that the land of the petitioner is not covered by G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.08.2000, and that the G.O. itself is not in operation now. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devasthanam. The petitioner does not dispute that the possession of the land in question by his paternal grant father was in the capacity as a tenant. Even assuming that the petitioner and his father have succeeded to the tenancy rights, the fact remains that by operation of Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987, tenancy in respect of the land held by religious institutions, irrespective of the character and tenure of the tenancy, stood terminated. Therefore, without the necessity of initiating any further proceedings, the Devasthanam is entitled to resume possession of the land. The facility created in favour of small farmers cannot be extended to the petitioner, because of the sheer extent involved. At the same time, in case the Devasthanam intends to put the land to agricultural use, it can auction the leasehold rights, in which event the petitioner can participate in the auction and continue as fresh lessee in the event of his emerging as highest bidder. Further, in case the petitioner does not emerge as highest bidder, he shall be entitled to continue as tenant, if he is prepared to pay the amount oﬀered by the highest bidder. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the steps taken by the Devasthanam to resume possession of the land. It is however, directed that if after taking possession of the land, the ﬁrst respondent intends to put the land to agricultural use, the leasehold rights thereof shall be put to public auction, within two months from the date of resumption of land. It shall be open to the petitioner to participate in the auction. If he is emerged as a highest bidder or if he is prepared to pay the amount oﬀered by the highest bidder, a fresh lease shall be granted in his favour, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.09.2008 kdl