HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12780 of 2010 ORDER: The second respondent-Devasthanam issued auction notice dated 02/04/2010 for grant of leasehold rights in respect of Ac.9.06 cents of agricultural wet land situated in Pagadalapalli village, Gudur Mandal. The petitioner had participated in the auction and he was declared as the successful bidder. It is stated that he had paid the first year lease amount of Rs.36,000/- on 19/04/2010 and the auction was also confirmed in his favour. While so, a fresh auction notice was issued on 25/05/2010 proposing to conduct a fresh auction in respect of the very same land of Ac.9.06 cents, in respect of which the petitioner was already granted leasehold rights. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the fact that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held on 19/04/2010 has not been disputed. However, it is stated that as the bid of the petitioner for Ac.9.06 cents of land was only Rs.4,000/- more than the previous year, whereas similar lands fetched Rs.1,000/- increase per acre for one year, the Regional Joint Commissioner, having opined that the bid amount was very low, rejected the petitioner’s bid and directed to conduct fresh auction. Accordingly, though fresh auction notice was issued, no auction was held on 10/06/2010. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As per Rule 16 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules, 2003, made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11/03/2003, the acceptance of the bids shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority. In the instant case, as the Regional Joint Commissioner, who is the competent authority, has not approved the petitioner’s bid, it can be said that the petitioner has acquired any legal right to continue as a lessee in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued. However, having regard to the plea of the petitioner that he was already put in possession and thereafter he had spent huge amounts for making the land fit for cultivation, particularly in view of the willingness expressed by him to pay higher maktha, the petitioner is permitted to make an appropriate representation before the respondents 1 and 2 with a request to grant the leasehold rights in his favour. If any such representation is made, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law by the respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI 29th June, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by one week. B/o. SKM