HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.28441 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing for Respondents 3 and 4 and the Writ Petition is being disposed of with the consent of both the learned counsel. The lands situate in Sy.Nos.74, 73/1 and 73/3 of Bheemavaram Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District stand in the names of Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple and Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple, Respondents 3 and 4 herein. The said lands were proposed to be leased out by public auction. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the notification issued in that regard as illegal. The case of the petitioners is that they inherited the aforesaid lands from their forefathers. According to them, their forefathers were devotees and rendering service to the temple. The lands were given to their forefathers in recognition of their services and thereby they became absolute owners. The petitioners inherited the said lands and thus have been in possession of the lands with absolute rights. Thus, according to them, Respondents are not entitled to auction the leasehold rights. The aforesaid temples deny the claim of the petitioners and assert that the lands are endowment lands. The petitioners have encroached the said lands and are in illegal possession. The petitioners have no right or title over the subject lands. Thus, the proposed auction is legal, valid and the same is not liable to be interfered with. Even though auction is sought to be resisted by the petitioners by claiming absolute rights, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the claim of the parties cannot be decided in this writ petition. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that even if the petitioners are treated as encroachers, they are not liable to be dispossessed without following due procedure contemplated under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’). On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for Respondents 3 and 4, while admitting that the petitioners are in possession of the subject lands, submits that merely because the petitioners are in possession, the auction notification per se cannot be treated as illegal. The counsel also submits that the Respondents 3 and 4 will initiate appropriate proceedings for evicting the petitioners as per law. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. It is true that petitioners assert their rights by contending that they inherited the subject lands through their forefathers. They, however, admit in their affidavit, which was sworn on 18-12-2009, which is filed in this Court during the course of hearing, that the subject lands stand in the names of the Respondent-Temples. In view of the said admission, it cannot be said that the proposed auction per se is illegal. Learned standing counsel fairly submits that appropriate proceedings will be initiated against the petitioners and possession of the subject lands will be delivered to the successful bidders only after evicting the petitioners by due process of law. In view of the said statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no objection insofar as auctioning the leasehold rights is concerned, but insofar as delivery of possession is concerned, the same shall not be done unless the petitioners are evicted in the aforesaid manner. In the light of the above submissions and having regard to the fact that there is a dispute as to the right of the parties over the subject lands, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition holding that : (i) the proposed auction pursuant to the impugned notification per se is not invalid; and (ii) the possession of the subject land, however, shall not be delivered to the successful bidder unless the petitioners are dispossessed by following the procedure under Section 83 of the Act. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.35118 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.4047 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. December 21, 2011 Tsr