THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17585 of 2010 WRIT PETITION No.17587 of 2010 WRIT PETITION No.17588 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No.17600 of 2010 Dated: 22.07.2010 In Writ Petition No.17585 of 2010 Chinthapalli Suryanarayana … Petitioner Vs. 1. Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., and 2 others. .. Respondents In Writ Petition No.17587 of 2010 Kondapallli Venkata Rao … Petitioner Vs. 1. Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., and 2 others. .. Respondents In Writ Petition No.17588 of 2010 Pulla Dharma Raju … Petitioner Vs. 1. Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., and 2 others. .. Respondents A N D In Writ Petition No.17600 of 2010 Loda Nookaratnam … Petitioner Vs. 1. Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., and 2 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17585 of 2010 WRIT PETITION No.17587 of 2010 WRIT PETITION No.17588 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No.17600 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim to be in possession of small extents of agricultural land belonging to the 3rd respondent temple as cultivating tenants. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing auction notice dated 12.7.2010 proposing to conduct public auction in respect of the lands in possession of the petitioners, these writ petitions have been filed. It is pleaded that the petitioners are landless poor persons and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question for the past several years. It is also stated that they have been paying the rentals regularly without any default and that the representations dated 5.5.2010 made by them for renewal of the lease for the years 2010-2011 on enhancement of maktha is still pending with the 3rd respondent temple. It is contended that as per Section 82 (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) the petitioners, being landless poor persons and have been in continuous possession for more than six years are entitled for renewal of their leases and therefore the 3rd respondent is not justified in proposing to put the leasehold rights to auction. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. The law is well-settled that the statutory benefit under Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987 is available to those persons whose leases were subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act 30 of 1987. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioners were put in possession of the lands in question being the successful bidders in the public auction conducted after commencement of the Act. In the circumstances, the mere fact that the petitioners have been in continuous possession of the lands in question does not entitle them to claim the renewal of lease for further period. Hence the impugned action of the 3rd respondent cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioners to participate in the auction. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 22.07.2010 gbs