IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 9529 of 2008 Between: Musti Pentaiah, s/o. Late Narasaiah, R/o. Rangadham, Mogiligidda Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Mahaboongar District. 2 Sri Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, Mogiligidda Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboongar District. Rep by its Manager. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Mahaboongar in not adjudicating the claim of the petitioner as a land-less poor person under Rule 3 of GO Ms.No. 379, dated 11-3- 2003 relating to the land admeasuring an extent of Acs.8.00 in Sy.Nos. 26, 27 & 28 situated at Mogiligidda Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboongar District belonging to the 2nd respondent temple, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and opposed to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not adjudicating the petitioner’s claim as a landless poor person under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.8.00 cents in S.Nos.26, 27 & 28 situated in Mogiligidda village belonging the to 2nd respondent-Temple, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that his father was in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.8.00 cents situated in S.Nos.26, 27 & 28 belonging to the 2nd respondent-Sri Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, in Mogiligidda village and after his death, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of it by paying maktha regularly to the Government. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003 which postulates that the 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, who is the competent authority, shall adjudicate the claims of the landless poor persons as defined under Section 82 of the Endowments Act. Then, the petitioner made a representation, dated 14.6.2006 to the 1st respondent to declare him as landless poor person, and he also produced a certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar to the effect that the he has no other lands except the land in question and he is a landless poor person. The 1st respondent-Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, vide his proceedings dated 10.8.2006, directed the Inspector, Endowments Department to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report.. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of the fact that he is a landless poor person, the 1st respondent has not considered his representation so far for adjudication of his claim. Further, the Manager of the 2nd respondent-Temple is trying to put the leasehold rights of the land in question to public auction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is a threat of eviction and the authorities may put the leasehold rights of the land to a public auction, however, the same is denied by the learned standing counsel for Temples stating that so far there are no proposals to put the leasehold rights of the land to public auction. Inasmuch as the petitioner is claiming to be a landless poor person, for which, he gave a representation, dated 14.6.2006, the authorities should have passed an order either way and should not have put him in darkness. In fact, the proceedings dated 10.8.2006 clearly signifies receipt of such representation from the petitioner. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-Asst. Commissioner of Endowments to cause an enquiry into the matter if not already done and decide as to whether the petitioner comes within the meaning of landless poor person. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 29.04.2008 bcj