HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.15149 of 2011 Date : 08-07-2011 Between : Saakshi Satti Raju .. Petitioner and The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Dharmika Bhavan, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad and 2 Others .. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.15149 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the public notification dated 19-05-2011 proposing to auction leasehold rights of the agricultural land belonging to the 3rd Respondent-Temple. The petitioner obtained lease of the land belonging to the 3rd respondent-temple admeasuring an extent of Acs.2.47 cents situated in Sy.No.33/3 of Vegayammapeta Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District for a period of three years from 2004 to 2007. The lease was not extended after 2007. However it appears that the petitioner continued to remain in occupation and enjoyment of the land. The Executive Officer of the 3rd Respondent issued the impugned notification for auctioning the leasehold rights for the period from 2011- 12 to 2013-14. It is the case of the petitioner that his lease was extended on an oral understanding for a further period of three years from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. The petitioner pleads that he could not raise crops in the year 2009-2010. He was recognized as a cyclone affected ryot, therefore he approached the 3rd Respondent to reduce the maktha. He paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 31-05-2011 on being assured of further extension of lease. However, the 3rd Respondent contrary to the assurance has issued the impugned auction notification, thus depriving him of the lease. He has therefore filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the pleadings would submit that the petitioner is a small farmer and is entitled for extension of lease. The 3rd Respondent has no justification in auctioning the leasehold rights without considering the claim of the petitioner for extension of lease. The petitioner was not a defaulter and the default if any in payment of maktha was due to the natural calamities which should not be a ground for the authorities in rejecting the extension of lease. The counsel therefore would submit that the impugned auction is liable to be interdicted. I have considered the aforesaid contentions with reference to the material on record. Admittedly, the lease of the petitioner expired by 2007. Thereafter, there are no orders or instrument extending the lease. However, it appears that he was continued to remain in occupation. Expiry of lease does not absolve the petitioner from paying the lease amounts as he has remained in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. He failed in remitting the amount for the period from 2007-2008 to 2010-2011. He was served with a notice dated 09-05-2011 calling upon him to remit the entire arrears of maktha. But he remitted an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 31-05-2011 towards part of the arrears after the receipt of notice dated 09-05-2011. Thus the petitioner has become a defaulter and is not entitled to legitimately claim extension of lease. Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 provides that any person who is in occupation of endowments land without approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage or licence and also the person who continues to remain in the land after the expiry or termination or cancellation of lease or mortgage or licence shall be treated as an encroacher. Therefore, the petitioner who has continued to remain in occupation of the subject land even after expiry of lease period is an encroacher within the meaning of the aforesaid provision. Therefore, he has no right to oppose the proposed auction of leasehold rights. Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 issued in G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11-03-2003 provides that all leases shall be by public auction except where the competent authority permits the lease of any property otherwise than the public auction on being satisfied for the reasons to exempt public auction. In the instant case admittedly there is no such permission granted exempting the lands from auction. The 3rd Respondent is thus acting only in accordance with the law. The proposed action therefore cannot be found fault with. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly at the admission stage. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 08-07-2011. Skmr