HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9678 of 2010 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioners on 26.03.2010. The petitioners are all lessees of lands belonging to the second respondent-Devasthanam. They were granted lease for a period of three years, i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, for varying extents and for varying lease amounts. It is their case that the lands which were given on lease were badly affected because of floods in the year 2008-09 resulting in their sustaining huge loss; the loss incurred would necessitate their lease being extended for a further period of three years on the same rent; and they made an application on 26.03.2010 seeking extension of lease. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to auction the leasehold rights on 28.04.2010. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 notified in G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.03.2003, are the rules governing grant of leasehold rights for Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. Rule 7(1) requires the leases to be made by public auction. The proviso to Rule 7(1) enables the competent authority, on a request made in writing by the Executive Authority, to permit the lease of any property otherwise than by public auction, for reasons to be recorded in writing, if it is in the interest of the institution or endowment to do so. The rules prescribe the manner in which the auction is required to be conducted. Rule 19 provides 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 of the land shall be deemed to be an encroacher within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act. Since the mode of grant of leasehold rights is, under Rule 7, by public auction and the exception in this regard is only if it is in the interest of religious institution or endowment, the petitioners’ request that extension of lease be granted to compensate them for the loss they suffered would fall foul of the statutory rules aforementioned. It is not even the petitioners’ case that grant of leasehold rights in their favour for a further period of three years is in the interest of the second respondent-Devasthanam. It is if an auction is held that the second respondent-Devasthanam would be able to maximize its revenues since the leasehold rights would be granted to a person who would submit the highest bid in the auction. Leaving it open to the petitioners if they so chose, to participate in the auction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:27.04.2010 usd