THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12600 OF 2010 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents, in conducting auction of tenancy rights of its institution on 09.06.2010, without considering the petitioner’s representation as violative of Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987. The 3rd respondent owns an extent of Ac.4.38 cts of agricultural land in R.S. No.45/2 and 49/2 in Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioner participated in the auctions held in the year 2005 for grant of leasehold rights and, on his being declared to be the highest bidder, was granted leasehold rights for the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. The petitioner would rely on a certificate issued by the Tahasildar to contend that he is a landless poor and would assert he is entitled to the protection of Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987, the A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments of Agricultural Rules, 2003 were made and notified in G.O.Ms. No.379 dated 11.03.2003. Rule 3 relates to determination of landless poor person and, under sub-rule (1) thereof, if any cultivating tenant claims to be a landless poor person the Assistant Commissioner, having territorial jurisdiction, is required to enquire into and decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person, as defined in Section 82, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the Executive Authority of the concerned institution or Endowment. It is not even the petitioner’s case that he made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments seeking that he be declared to be a landless poor person. In the absence of any such application being made by the petitioner, and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments deciding that he is a landless poor person, the petitioner is not entitled to the protection of the proviso to Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987 whereunder landless poor are entitled to be continued as tenant on payment of 2/3rd of the lease amount for similarly placed lands. Sri Meherchand Noori, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since the petitioner was not put in possession of the land for eleven months after commencement of the lease, he is entitled for extension of lease and, in any event, since there is a standing crop on the land in question, the petitioner should be permitted to continue to retain possession of the lands atleast for a further period of three months. The petitioner’s lease expired in the year 2008 and, even without a lease agreement having been entered into, he continued to remain in occupation of the lands in question for a period of around two years thereafter. Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules relates to leases by public auction. Under sub-rule (1) thereof all leases shall be by public auction. The proviso to Rule 7(1) enables the competent authority, on a request being made in writing by the Executive Authority, to permit lease of any property, otherwise than by public auction, if he satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the suggested procedure is necessary and in the interests of the institution or endowment. Rule 19 stipulates that any lease granted, continued or allowed to be continued, otherwise than in accordance with these rules, shall be null and void and the person or persons in possession shall be deemed to be an encroacher within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act. In view of Rule 7(1), the action of the 3rd respondent in holding a public auction for grant of lease hold rights cannot be faulted. While the proviso to Rule 7(1) enables the competent authority to permit lease of agricultural lands, otherwise than by public auction, exercise of such a power can only be on fulfillment of two conditions. Firstly that a request is made by the Executive Authority in this regard and secondly that the competent authority is satisfied that the procedure as suggested by the Executive Authority is necessary and in the interests of the institution or endowment. The petitioner’s grievance is that he would suffer if lease is not extended. It is not even his case that it would be the interests of the institution if he were granted extension of the lease. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to remain in occupation of agricultural lands belonging to the 3rd respondent without a valid lease for the past two years. I see no reason to accede to his request that the respondents be directed to extend the lease, which expired two years ago in 2008, without recourse to a public auction. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he choses, to participate in the public auction, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ Date: 04.06.2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Note: Issue copy by 08.06.2010. B/o MRKR