IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15738 of 2005 Between: Mingu Naga Gopala Swamy S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Machavaram Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments Endowments Department Vijayawada. 2 The Inspector Endowments Department Machilipatnam Krishna District. 3 Sree Rameswara Swamyvari Temple Rep.by its Manager Sri S.V.D. Prasad Machavaram Koduru-Mandal Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to To direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in evicting me by conducting open auction on 20-07-2005 in respect of wet land in an extent of Ac.1-97 cents in R.S.Nos.375 and 378 belonging to Sree Rameswara Swamyvari Temple, Machavaram, Koduru-Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the rules and articles of the constitution of india, opposed to principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.CH.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.15738 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioner from Ac.1.97 cents in R.S.Nos.375 and 378 of Machavaram, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the said land belongs to the 3rd respondent-Sree Rameswara Swamyvari Temple, Machavaram. The petitioner states that his father by name Subba Rao was the tenant in respect of the land in question and after his demise about 10 years ago, the petitioner and his brothers have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying rents regularly to the 3rd respondent. While so, the 3rd respondent by notice dated.24-04-2003 cancelled the lease in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect and immediately thereafter proposed to grant fresh lease by conducting a public auction on 21-07-2003. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed W.P.No.14481 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated.13-08- 2003 permitting the petitioner to make an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments having territorial jurisdiction for determination of his status as a landless poor person as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11-03-2003. Accordingly the petitioner as well as his brothers made individual representations before the 1st respondent for determination of their status in respect of the land belonging to the 3rd respondent-temple. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed an order in favour of the elder brother of the petitioner declaring him as a cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.2.50 cents. However the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and no orders have been passed. In spite of the same the 3rd respondent proposed to conduct a public auction for grant of fresh lease in favour of the third parties in respect of Ac.1.97cents of land in occupation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed. This Court while directing rule nisi by an order dated.19.07.2005 directed that the auction proposed to be held shall be subject to further orders of this Court. Despite notice no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. As per Rule.3 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11-03-2003, immediately after coming into force of the Rules if any cultivating tenant claims to be a landless poor person, the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction shall enquire into and decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor as defined in Section.82 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act,1987 after giving a reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant. Since the petitioner states that he made such a claim, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The auction already held during the pendency of this writ petition shall be subject to the order that may be passed by the 1st respondent. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 4th December,2008 *TSNR