IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9969 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.N.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived, as it is not maintainable. It is directed against the tender-cum-public auction notification dt. 29.5.2000 issued by the 1st respondent for grant of lease of an extent of 1500 sq. yards in S.No. 1046 of Vijayanagaram belonging to Sri Jagannadha Swamyvari Temple, Vijayanagaram. According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners’ father Rammohan Rao obtained lease of the property in 1964 and was regularly paying the rents. Lease is said to have been renewed from time to time, though the writ petitioner is silent on the tenure of the initial lease and the periodicity of the renewals. According to the petitioners, on 3.4.1991 the Executive Officer directed their father to pay an amount of Rs. 3,564/- towards arrears of the lease amount for the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1995, which the petitioners state their father had paid. The petitioners’ father died in 1994 and thereafter the petitioners continued in occupation of the property. It is admitted that no lease deed was executed in their favour but is asserted that the respondents were accepting the lease amount from the petitioners, after the death of their father. Para-4 of the writ affidavit sets out the lease amounts paid by the petitioners from 1992 to 1997. Now, the 1st respondent has issued tender-cum-public auction notice for lease of the property and the petitioners are before this Court challenging these proceedings. In the grounds set out in para 6(a) the petitioners tongue and cheek assert that they are statutory tenants. Neither is it pleaded nor the learned Counsel for the petitioners states before this court as to what the petitioners mean by the claim of being statutory tenants. No statute is pleaded in support of their imaginative claim of being statutory tenants. In the ground set out in para 6(b), the petitioners admit that there is no written lease agreement drawn up and executed between them and the Devasthanam through the 1st respondent. The petitioners further claim that they cannot be treated as encroachers under Section 83 of the Endowments Act. Such a claim without any proceedings under Section 83 of the Act having been initiated by the Endowments Department cannot be accepted. The petitioners present no legal foundation for this writ petition and are squatting on the land having obtained an interim order on 14.6.2000 interdicting the confirmation of the auction, pursuant to the impugned auction notice. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the respondents have not conducted auction presumably because of the interim order. In the facts and circumstances adverted to above, the institution of this writ petition, without a scintilla of title or basis in law constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. This court is also constrained to observe that the Endowments Officials including the respondents 1 to 3 had taken no action to evict the petitioners who are clearly and self confessed encroachers of endowment lands. This court hopes and trusts that the respondents would initiate proper steps for safeguarding the property of Sri Jagannadha Swamyvari Temple, Vijayanagaram expeditiously since that is the substative purpose for which the respondents hold public office. As the petitioners without having any basis in law obtained an order from the judicial branch interdicting the executive process of the Endowments Department, from conducting public auction and thereby deprived the Temple of a fair return on its property, this court considers it proper to dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs five thousand only) payable by the petitioners to Sri Jagannadha Swamyvari Temple, Vijayanagaram. The respondents are directed to recover these costs from the petitioners and credit the same to the account of Sri Jagannadha Swamyvari Temple, Vijayanagaram. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 5.6.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 9969 of 2000 Dated: 5.6.2009.