IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11521 of 2005 Between: Gullapalli Subbaravamma … Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kothapet, Ongole, Prakasam District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. K. Lalitha Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri N. Guru Gopal This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11521 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in auctioning the lease hold rights of the lands admeasuring Ac.6.99 cents in Sy.Nos.459 and 460 of Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District belonging to respondent No.2 Temple, as illegal, arbitrary. The writ petition is filed on the allegation that respondent No.2 issued a notice by tom tom stating that the lease hold rights of the lands in question would be put to auction on 16.05.2005 and that the auction was accordingly conducted on the same day. The petitioner further claimed that WP.No.16055 of 2003 filed by her was disposed of by this Court on 13.08.2003 directing respondent No.1 to consider the application filed by her to declare her as small farmer under Rule 3 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and that pending the said application, the respondents were not justified in auctioning the land. This Court, by order dated 07.06.2005, granted an order of status quo for a period of three weeks and the same was extended by order dated 26.09.2005. Since the said order is subsisting and the petitioner’s application for declaring her as a small farmer is stated to be pending before respondent No.1, I do not see any purpose in keeping this writ petition pending. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the application of the petitioner, if not already done, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to the petitioner. Till an appropriate order is passed by respondent No.1, status quo as on today with respect to the possession of the lands in question shall be maintained. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.14745 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.07.2008 ES