IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 10600 of 2005 Between: G. Rangarao S/o.Late Bogaiah R/o.Kakaramilli (V) Enikepalli Nidammarru (M) West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Dept., Eluru W.G.District. 2 Regional Joint Commissioner Multi Zone-1, Endowments Dept., Kakinada. 3 Manager/Exective Officer Sri Sarveswaraswami Temple Kakaramilli, Nidammaru (M) W.G.District. 4 Inspector Endowments Dept., Tadepalligudem W.G.District. .....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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct auction of the leasehold rights without deciding petitioners claims, Dt.27-8-2003 and without deciding his entitlement for the land of Ac.2.30 1/2 cents in Sy.No.26/1 situated in Enikepalli Village, as landless poor person is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and violative of the provisions of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious and Institutions Endowments Act, 1990 and the rules framed there under and consequently direct the respondents not to conduct auction of the leasehold rights without deciding his claim in respect of the said land and pass such other order orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana for the petitioner and Sri V.T.M.Prasad for Sri Sarveswaraswamy Temple, the third respondent. The writ petition is filed to interdict an auction proposed by the third respondent-Devasthanam of its land inter alia in an extent of Acs.2.30 ½ cents in survey No.26/1, Enikepalli Village. The petitioner alleges that the initiation of auction proceedings by the respondents without determining the petitioner’s claim on the ground that he is a landless poor person and a lessee of the lands, is arbitrary. The petitioner colourfully claims that he was inducted into possession of the endowments land in 1971 as a tenant. He admits that the land belongs to the third respondent-Devasthanam. He asserts that rent was enhanced from time to time and his tenancy was extended. While so, the respondents notified auction of the leasehold rights on 26.05.2005 without evicting the petitioner following due process of law. According to the petitioner, he is a landless poor person within the meaning of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, (for short ‘the Act’) and therefore, entitled to continue in possession of the lands. This is the framework on which the relief is claimed and this Court granted interim stay of auction in respect of Acs.2.30 ½ cents in survey No.26/1, by an order, dated 28.04.2005, in W.P.M.P.13672 of 2005. Third respondent has filed W.V.M.P.No.229 of 2006 seeking vacation of the order. However, having regard to the short question involved, writ petition itself is considered and disposed of. In a counter-affidavit filed on 15.06.2005, the third respondent-Devasthanam asserts that the lease in favour of the petitioner expired in 1997. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.04.2003 to deliver possession of the subject land. Since the petitioner is not in possession of a valid lease by the Devasthanam after 1977, he cannot claim entitlement to the benefit as a landless poor person under Section 82 of the Act. The benefits under Section 82 are not meant for all landless poor persons, but only to those landless poor persons, who satisfied the definition of being landless poor persons and were also in lawful cultivation of the lands of the endowments. Since the petitioner is not a lawful cultivating tenant, there being no lease in his favour, he is not entitled to the benefits. The petitioner has not chosen to file any affidavit contesting the averments in the counter-affidavit. In the light of the ambiguity in the pleadings in the writ petition with regard to the currency of a lease in favour of the petitioner, in view of the categoric averment in the counter-affidavit of the third respondent- Devasthanam that the petitioner’s lease expired in 1977 and in the light of no further pleading on behalf of the petitioner contesting the averments of the respondent, it must follow that the petitioner cannot legitimately claim that he is a lawful cultivating tenant of the third respondent-Devasthanam lands after 1977. He is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit under Section 82 of the Act nor can he interdict any proceedings initiated by the respondents for conducting auction for grant of leasehold rights of the endowment properties. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order, dated 28.04.2005, stands dissolved. As the writ petition itself is dismissed, there is no need to consider W.V.M.P.No.229 of 2006 and it is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs in the writ petition. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 02-05-2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{CHP}