THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12375 OF 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur in O.A. No.8 of 2006 in order No.73 dated 01.05.2010, the present writ petition is filed. On receipt of a report from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, under Section 83(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, (30 of 1987), seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property in question, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, after elaborate analysis of the material on record, was satisfied that the petitioner was an encroacher of Shop No.9 belonging to Sri Guntur Annadana Samajam, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Town. By the impugned order the Deputy Commissioner directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of Shop No.9 to the 2nd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and observed that, if the encroacher did not remove the encroachment and did not vacate within the period specified, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments could remove the encroachment and obtain possession of the property taking police assistance under Section 84(i) of Act 30 of 1987. Before this Court, the petitioner would contend that he was put in possession of the Shop initially on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- which was enhanced to Rs.885/- in the year 2006, and that he was now willing to pay enhanced rent of Rs.1500/- per month for the said shop. He would contend that he had incurred huge expenditure towards repair of the shop and would refer to a Writ Petition filed before this Court in W.P. No.2047 of 2001 dated 22.11.2001 in support of his contention that this Court had directed the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments to obtain approval for the lease of shops held by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner would further contend that failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to do so cannot result in his being evicted from the shop in question. It is not in dispute that no lease agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable properties (Other than Agriculture Lands) Lease Rules specifically provides under Rule 3(1) that all leases of immovable properties, belonging to Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions or Endowments, shall be made by public auction. Under the proviso to Rule 3(1), the competent authority may, on a request made in writing by the executive authority, permit lease of any property otherwise than by public auction if he is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the interests of the institution or endowments will not suffer thereby. It is not even the case of the petitioner that any such request was made by the executive authority. The petitioner has also not shown as to how it would be in the interests of the 2nd respondent institution if he was granted lease otherwise than by public auction. Rule 4(1) provides that no lease of immovable property shall be granted for a period exceeding five years without the prior approval of the Government. Rule 15 provides that any lease granted, otherwise than in accordance with these rules, shall be null and void. As the Rules stipulate that lease of the shops in question can only be by way of public auction, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that a lease should be executed in his favour at an enhanced monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month without recourse to the public auction route. In the absence of any lease agreement being entered into, the petitioner is undoubtedly an encroacher under the Explanation to Section 83 of the Act 30 of 1987 and the order of the 1st respondent declaring the petitioner to be one such cannot be faulted. The order of this Court, in W.P. No.2047 of 2001 dated 22.11.2001, merely directed that the single trustee should function under the instructions of either the founder or member of the founder family. The requirement of approval of the lease being obtained is merely a part of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 07.06.2001 which was impugned in the said Writ Petition. There is no direction by this Court, as erroneously contended by the petitioner, that the 2nd respondent should obtain approval of lease in respect of the shops belonging to it. Viewed from any angle, the order of the 1st respondent in O.A. No. 8 of 2006 dated 01.05.2010 does not necessitate interference. Needless to state that, in case a public auction is held for grant of lease hold rights for the shops belonging to the 2nd respondent, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from participating in the said auction. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ Date: 03.06.2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR