IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1244 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05.09.2008 in W.P.NO.19200 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Bandela Sathemma, W/o. Bangaraiah, Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...APPELLANT AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowment Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavary District. 3 Sri Umakamandaleswara Swamyvari Temple, Rep. byits Manager, Ryali, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Eli Venkanna, S/o. Venkataswamy, Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, Est Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.C.RAMESH SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANKAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1244 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the sides. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant-unsuccessful writ petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 05.09.2008 in W.P.No.19200 of 2008, inter alia, ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess her from the land of an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.68/2 situated at Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings. The claim of the appellant to declare herself as landless poor is rejected. However, respondents 2 and 3 conducted auction of leasehold rights on 06.08.2008 and the fourth respondent became the highest bidder. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner is that in the said land, she raised banana crop, which is yet to be harvested and the respondents are not permitting her to harvest the same. At the admission stage, learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition granting ten days’ time from that day to the appellant-petitioner to harvest the crop, in whatever form it is, under the supervision of the Manager of the third respondent-Temple. Hence, the appeal. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, we are of the view that since the claim of the appellant as landless poor is rejected, she cannot claim any right over the land. Admittedly, the appellant has not ﬁled any application for purchase or otherwise of the land. Further, the auction has already been conducted and the fourth respondent became the highest bidder. Even reasonable time is given to the appellant-petitioner to harvest the crop. In the circumstances, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is permitted to harvest the banana crop within a period of one month from today. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ___________________ (P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J) 29th September 2008 RRB