THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.3749 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner seeks to declare the proposed action of the respondents seeking to grant leasehold rights in favour of third parties in a public auction in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.1-90 cents in Sy.No.70 and Ac.2-72 cents in Sy.No.70/A situated at Indupur village, Alluru Mandal, Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land admittedly belongs to Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Swamy Temple of Indupur village and his ancestors have been enjoying the said land with absolute rights subject to the condition of performing Archakam services in the Temple. In the year 1940, the then trustees of the Temple filed a suit in O.S.No.390 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsiff, Kavali, against his ancestors for recovery of possession of the said property. The said suit was dismissed on 07-02-1942 granting liberty to the Temple to take action against the Archaka under the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) for non-performance of services and irregularities, if any. But, in the absence of any irregularities, the Temple cannot take possession of the said land. The said judgment was also confirmed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Nellore, in the appeal in A.S.No.93 of 1942, dated 22-06-1942, as well as the Madras High Court in S.A.No.773 of 1944. Thus, it is stated that the respondents have no right to interfere with his long standing possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. It is further stated that the petitioner has been discharging Archaka services in the Temple by engaging eligible male Arachakas for performing Archakas by paying remuneration to them with the income derived from the lands in question. While so, the respondents have made an announcement in the village that the lease hold rights of the said lands would be auctioned on 01-03-2002 in favour of third parties. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents cannot auction the leasehold rights of the said land in favour of third parties as he is in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the lands in question without following due process of law and without giving any notice. A counter has been filed by the Executive Officer of the Temple stating that the aforesaid judgments have no relevance in view of Section 34 of the Act. Section 34 of the Act reads as follows:- (1) (a) Notwithstanding anything in any compromise or agreement entered into or scheme framed or sanad or grant made or judgment, decree or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or other authorities prior to the commencement of this Act and in force on such commencement, all rights, whether, hereditary, contractual or otherwise of a person holding any office of the Pedda Jeeyangar, Chinna Jeeyangar, a Mirasidar or an Archaka or Pujari or any other office or service or post by whatever name it is called in any religious institution or endowment shall on the commencement of this Act stand abolished. (b) Any usage or practice relating to the succession to any office or service or post mentioned in clause (a) shall be void; (c) All rights and emoluments of any nature in cash or kind or both accrued to and appertaining to any office or service or post mentioned in clause (a) and subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall on such commencement stand extinguished.” Thus, it is stated that any right accrued by the petitioner from his ancestors stands abolished. It is further stated that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of filing I.A.No.85 of 2001 in A.T.C.No.6/2001 on the file of the Special Officer-cum- Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, Nellore District, wherein the Tribunal passed an elaborate order on 05-02-2002 stating that the Temple is at liberty to take action as per the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that the said land belongs to the Temple and it is being managed by the 2nd respondent. It is also not in dispute that as per Section 34 of the Act, the right, if any given to the petitioner and his ancestors’ to enjoy the Temple land stands abolished and extinguished. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a lessee of the said land. Even, if any lease granted in favour of the petitioner shall stand cancelled as per Section 82(1) of the Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no right to restrain the Temple from granting leasehold rights in favour of third party. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-08-2010 Prv