HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.13078 of 2008 Date of Order: 18.07.2011 Between: K.Venkata Charyulu and others ..Petitioners and Government of Andhrta Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.13078 of 2008 ORDER :- The petitioners, claiming to be the hereditary Archakas of Sri Rukmini Satyabhama Sametha Sri Venugopala Swamy Devasthanam, Vellaturu village, Krishna District, filed this writ petition assailing the public auction notice dated 09.06.2008 issued by the said Devasthanam proposing to auction the leasehold rights over the land admeasuring Acs.27-25 cents situated in Vellaturu village for a period of one year. It was the petitioners’ case that the subject land was endowed for Archakatvam Service and was therefore exclusively reserved for their benefit. This Court, by order dated 23.06.2008, directed that pending further orders the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the lands in question, if not already dispossessed. Respondent Nos.8 to 18, being the successful bidders in the public auction held pursuant to the auction notice dated 09.06.2008, were impleaded in the writ petition pursuant to the order dated 17.06.2011 passed by this court in WP.MP.No.20877 of 2008 in W.P.No.13078 of 2008. Vacate stay applications were filed by respondent Nos.4, 8, 9 and 10 to vacate the interim orders granted by this Court. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.Raghunandan and Sri Ravi Kumar Toleti, learned counsel appearing for some of the impleaded successful bidders and Sri Velivela Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Devasthanam. With the consent of the counsel, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. It is pertinent to note that the period of lease reserved under the impugned public auction notice dated 09.06.2008 was only for one year which has long since expired. To that extent, the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned public auction notice no longer survives for consideration. It is however contended by Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel, that the petitioners have no right to interdict the leasing of its property by the Devasthanam and that, as pointed out by the 4th respondent in his counter, the petitioners themselves agreed in writing to the leasing of the subject lands through public auction. As this aspect was disputed by the petitioners in their reply affidavit, the records were called for. Perusal of the records manifested that the petitioners addressed a letter in Telugu agreeing to the lease of the subject lands on the condition that an arrangement should be made for paying them salaries. The signatures in the said letter were found to tally with the signatures in the Vakalath filed by the petitioners in this writ petition. Thereafter, an additional reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners claiming ignorance of the contents of the said letter and setting out the alleged circumstances in which the petitioners were made to affix their signatures therein. This Court is not inclined to go into these disputed questions of fact. The fact remains that the petitioners did not advert to this letter in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. That apart, if they claim any rights over the subject land on the ground that the same is endowed in their favour, it is for them to establish the same before the duly constituted forum. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is not equipped to adjudicate this issue. Section 87(1)(c) and (1)(d) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 empowers the Endowments Tribunal to enquire into and decide a dispute as to whether any property is endowed and, if so, the nature of such endowment. The petitioners would necessarily have to invoke the said remedy for establishing their entitlement, if any, in respect of the subject land. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, as the period of lease referred to in the public auction notice dated 09.06.2008 has already expired and the successful bidders in the said auction, being respondent Nos.8 to 18 herein, were denied the benefit of the leasehold rights secured by them in such auction owing to the interim orders granted by this Court, they would be entitled to refund of the amounts paid/deposited by them. In the light of the facts stated supra, there would be no necessity to drive them to avail civil remedies for securing the refund of such monies. Respondent No.6 shall accordingly refund the monies deposited by respondent Nos.8 to 18 towards the bids submitted by them pursuant to the auction notice dated 09.06.2008. The petitioners’ challenge to the public auction notice dated 09.06.2008 is rendered infructuous by efflux of time. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to the direction aforestated to respondent No.6. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 18, 2011 lmv HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.13078 of 2008 18.07.2011 lmv