THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10228 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners claim to have submitted representations dated 09.10.2009 and 20.10.2009 seeking extension of lease for the year 2010-2011, after waiving the maktha paid for the previous years. Their claim is based on the ground that the entire crop was washed away, in the unprecedented floods, which took place on 2nd October, 2009. They would place reliance in this regard on an order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.1116 of 2010 in W.P. No.887 of 2010 dated 25.01.2010, and on G.O.Rt. No.2711 dated 22.12.2006. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, since the representation submitted by the petitioners is still pending consideration by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments the respondents were not justified in proceeding with the auction as that would render consideration of their representation an exercise in futility. Learned Counsel would contend that, as the Act and the Rules do not prohibit grant of extension of lease, in circumstances which the petitioners unfortunately find themselves in, this Court should direct the respondents to consider waiving the maktha and extending the petitioners’ lease for the year 2010-2011 also. These contentions are wholly misconceived. The interim order passed by this Court, in W.P.M.P. No.1116 of 2010 in W.P. No.887 of 2010 dated 25.01.2010, was to the 2nd respondent i.e., the District Collector who was directed to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 09.10.2009 and 20.10.2009 by examining the applicability of G.O.Rt. No. 2711 to the petitioners cases and take an appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. G.O.Rt. No.2711 dated 22.12.2006 relates to the unprecedented floods which took place in the year 2006. The Government, by the said G.O, waived maktha on endowment lands for the year 2006-2007 as a one time measure, that too only to lessees of lands belonging to endowments/charitable institutions in the affected areas as per the notification issued by the District Collectors concerned. The said G.O. does not relate, and has no application, to the floods which took place in October, 2009 whereby, the petitioners claim that, the entire crop was washed away. The interim orders passed in the earlier writ petition is only against the District Collector and not against the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. The mere fact that the respondents admitted, in their counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.887 of 2010, that the petitioners’ representation was pending consideration by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, does not confer on the petitioners any right to claim extension of lease of agricultural lands belonging to respondent Nos.5 and 6 temples, or for a direction to the respondents not to conduct the auction till their representations are disposed of. While it is always open to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, if he so chooses, to consider the representation, in accordance with law, I see no reason to interdict the auction proceedings merely because the Deputy Commissioner has, even without any direction from this Court, chosen to examine the petitioners’ representation for waiver of makta or for extension of lease. The order passed in W.P.M.P. No.1116 of 2010 in W.P. No.887 of 2010 dated 25.01.2010 is not against respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein, and a direction to the 2nd respondent-District Collector to consider the petitioners representations would not preclude the 3rd respondent from proceeding to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights of agricultural lands belonging to the 5th and 6th respondents temples more so as the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called the 2003 Rules) require such leasehold rights to be granted by way of pubic auction. Rule 7(1) of the 2003 Rules require all leases to be made by public auction. Under the proviso to Rule 7(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 suggested procedure is necessary and in the interests of the Institution or Endowment. The proviso requires two conditions to be satisfied first that a request in this regard is made by the Executive Authority seeking permission to lease agricultural lands otherwise than by way of public auction. Secondly the competent authority is required to record his satisfaction that grant of leasehold rights of agricultural lands, belonging to religious endowments, otherwise than by way of public action is necessary and is in the interest of the endowment. The affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, makes no mention of how waiving maktha for the year 2010-2011 and extending the lease of the petitioners is either necessary for the religious endowment or is in its interest. Rule 19 of the 2003 Rules stipulates that any lease granted, confirmed or allowed to be confirmed otherwise than in accordance with these rules shall be null and void and the person or persons in possession of the land shall be deemed to be an encroacher within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act. The representations submitted by the petitioners is for continuance of the lease otherwise than in accordance with the rules. Permitting such continuance would be a null and void order. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to claim that a lease should be granted in their favour otherwise than by way of public auction as that would fall foul of the 2003 Rules. Viewed from any angle, the challenge to the auction being conducted by the 3rd respondent must fail. Leaving it open to the petitioners, if they so chose, to participate in the auction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 28.04.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR