IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12735 of 2008 Between: Damisetty Satyanarayana, S/o. Satyam, Veeravellipalli Village, Inavelli Mandal, East Godavari district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman, Sri Raja Narendra Swamywari Devasthanam Veluvalapalli village, Inavelli Mandal, East Godavari Dist., 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, Order or direction more especially in the nature of Mandamus declaring the notice of public auction dated 9-6- 2008 issued by the 1st respondent herein for auctioning the lease hold rights of schedule land admeasuring Ac.3.25 cents in Sy.No 215/3 and Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.214/3 in total extent of Acres 4.10 cents of Dry Lanka land situated in Veluvalapalli Village of Inavelli Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12735 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the auction notice dated 9.6.2008 issued by the 1st respondent proposing to auction the leasehold rights of the land belonging to the 1st respondent temple on 23.6.2008 as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the cultivating tenant of the land in question i.e., an extent of Ac.3.25 cents of land situated in Sy.No.215/3 and another Ac.0.85 cents of land situated in Sy.No.214/3 of Veluvalapalli Village of Inavelli Mandal, East Godavari District being the successful bidder in the auction held under the auction notice dated 14.5.2007. The petitioner contends that in the said auction the leasehold rights were put to public auction for a period of 3 years i.e., from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 and as such he is entitled to cultivate the land till 2010. Hence, this writ petition contending that the fresh auction proposed under the impugned notice dated 9.6.2008 is arbitrary and illegal. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments, under instructions, stated that though it is a fact that in the auction notice dated 14.5.2007 public auction was proposed to be conducted for grant of leasehold rights for a period of 3 years, ultimately the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner only for a period of one year as per the approval of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments vide proceedings dated 16.8.2007. A copy of the proceedings dated 16.8.2007 has been placed before this Court which shows that the leasehold rights granted in favour of the petitioner were approved only for one year i.e., for the year 2007-08 on annual maktha of Rs.20,500/-. It is to be noted that as per Rule 14 of the Statutory Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 11.3.2003 the acceptance of the bid shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority. Rule 16 provides for such approval. It is not in dispute that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is the competent authority for granting such approval. From the record placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader, since it is clear that the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority approved the lease in favour of the petitioner only for a period of one year i.e., 2007-08, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to continue as cultivating tenant for a period of 3 years from 2007. The mere fact that under the auction notice dated 14.5.2007 the leasehold rights were notified to be granted for a period of 3 years does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to claim the leasehold rights upto 2010 since the approval of the competent authority as per Rule 14 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Rules, 2003 was granted only for a period of one year. Hence, the impugned notice proposing to conduct auction for the years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the Writ petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 20.06.2008 gbs Note: Cc in 2 days. (B/O) gbs