THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10813 of 2010 Date: 06.07.2010 Between: Chimmasarthi Yellaiah, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10813 of 2010 O R D E R : The 4th respondent-temple proposed to conduct public auction on 28.04.2010 for grant of leasehold rights in respect of Ac.7.31 gunats of agricultural land in Sy.No.108 of Vallabhi Village, Mudigonda Mandal. The petitioner who claims to be one of the aspirants was present at the place of auction. It is stated that as the Executive Officer of the temple refused to furnish the details of the accounts for the past four years as demanded by the villagers, there was a commotion and while the Executive Officer insisted the public auction to be held, it was assured by the Chairman that the auction would be postponed till the accounts were properly settled. The petitioner states that believing the words of the Chairman, all the villagers, who assembled to participate in the auction, left the place. It is alleged that after all the villagers had left, the 5th respondent was surprisingly declared as the highest bidder for Rs.36,000/-. In the circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 4th respondent in declaring the 5th respondent as the highest bidder without actually conducting any auction is arbitrary and illegal. It is specifically alleged by the petitioner that whereas the land in question fetched the lease amount of Rs.45,000/- in the year 2007- 2008 and Rs.46,000/- in the year 2006-2007, the lease has now been granted in favour of the 5th respondent for a lesser amount of Rs.36,000/-. In the light of the said allegations, this Court while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 30.04.2010 directed that the possession of the land should not be handed over to the 5th respondent, pursuant to the alleged auction dated 28.04.2010. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 4th respondent-temple as well as the 5th respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the 5th respondent was declared as the successful bidder in the public auction held on 28.04.2010. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The rival claims made by the petitioner and the respondents being disputed questions of fact, cannot be gone into and decided by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as per Rule 16 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules’) made in G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endo.I) dated 11.03.2003, all leases shall be reported to the competent authority, who may either confirm, or for reasons to be recorded in writing disapprove the lease. Rule 12 further states that the auction shall be conducted by the Executive Officer, of the Institution or Endowment concerned and at every auction conducted, there shall be present such Departmental Officer as may be deputed by the competent authority, who shall oversee the proceedings and ensure that the auction is duly conducted in accordance with the Act and the Rules. In the light of the above statutory provisions, even assuming that the 5th respondent herein has been granted the lease by the 4th respondent, unless and until the same is approved by the competent authority under Rule 16(2) of the statutory Rules the 5th respondent does not acquire the rights as a lessee. The competent authority before granting approval under Rule 16, is required to take into consideration whether the auction was conducted in accordance with the Rule 12 of the Rules. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the rival claims made by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to make an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 16 of the Rules after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 4th respondent as well as the 5th respondent and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order either approving or disapproving the lease in favour of the 5th respondent,. Till such time, the land in question shall not be handed over to the 5th respondent. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 06.07.2010 KLP