THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16333 OF 2010, WRIT PETITION No.16337 OF 2010, AND WRIT PETITION No.16338 OF 2010. DATED : 23.07.2010 In W.P.No.16333 of 2010: 1. Sri kolakaloori Venkateshwarlu and 10 others. … Petitioners vs. Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-22 and 4 others. … Respondents In W.P.No.16337 of 2010: 1. Sri kolakaloori Peda Venkateswarlu and 19 others. … Petitioners vs. Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-22 and 4 others. … Respondents A N D In W.P.No.16338 of 2010: 1. Sri Billa Arogya Rao and 23 others. … Petitioners vs. Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-22 and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16333 OF 2010, WRIT PETITION No.16337 OF 2010, AND WRIT PETITION No.16338 OF 2010. ORDER : The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim to be in possession of small extents of agricultural lands belonging to Dharma Cheru Endowment, Mandapadu Village, Medikoduru Mandal, Guntur District as cultivating tenants. It is stated that the families of the petitioners have been in occupation of the said lands for over 100 years and they have been continuing as cultivating tenants all through on payment of rents regularly. These writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of the 5th respondent in holding an auction on 4.6.2010 for grant of leasehold rights in respect of the lands in possession of the petitioners for the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13. It is pleaded that the leases in their favour are subsisting and at no point of time any notice was served cancelling their leases or treating them as encroachers. It is also the specific case of the petitioners that they are landless poor persons and thus they are entitled to the statutory benefit under Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’). Contending that the impugned action of the respondents in putting the leasehold rights to public auction without notice to them and without recovering the possession following due process of law is arbitrary, illegal, the present writ petitions are filed. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. In W.P.No.16333 of 2010 it is stated in the counter-affidavit that all the petitioners, except the petitioners 7 and 11 were granted lease for the period from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 and the period of the said lease ended on 31.03.2010. Therefore auction was conducted on 4.6.2010 for grant of fresh leasehold rights for the years 2010 to 2013. Petitioner Nos.3, 5, 6 and 9 participated in the auction and they were declared as the successful bidders and their lease were also approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments vide proceedings dated 9.6.2010. However they failed to pay the bid amounts. So far as the petitioners 1, 2, 4, 8 and 10 are concerned, it is stated that they did not participate in the auction held on 4.6.2010 but they had been continuing in possession being the leaseholders for the previous three years though the lease period expired on 31.03.2010. So far as petitioners 7 and 11 are concerned, it is stated that they were inducted by the then trustees in the year 1999 and they were encroachers without any lease. It is also specifically pleaded that Form-I notices under Rule 5 (1) of Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003 calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the land in their occupation was served long back in the year 2003 and the petitioners never made any application for declaration as landless poor persons. In W.P.No.16337 of 2010 it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners 1 to 14 and 16 were the leaseholders for the three years period 2007-08 to 2009-10 which was approved vide proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 25.7.2007. The lease in favour of the husband of the petitioner No.15 was also approved for the said period of 3 years, however he died during the period of lease and thereafter the petitioner No.15 continued in his place. So far as the petitioners 17 to 20, it is stated that they were encroachers who had been inducted unauthorizedly by then Trustee. It is further stated that petitioners 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 & 15 had participated in the auction held on 4.6.2010 and they were declared as the successful bidders. The lease in their favour was also approved vide proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, dated 7.6.2010 for three years i.e., 2010-11 to 2012-13. It is contended that except the petitioners 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 & 15 the other petitioners whose lease expired on 31.3.2010 are encroachers and their occupation of the land in question as on today is illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.16338 of 2010 it is stated that the petitioners 1 to 12 were the leaseholders for a period of 3 years i.e., 2007-08 to 2009-10 and the lease in their favour was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments by proceedings dated 23.7.2007. Out of them, the 4th petitioner had again participated in the auction held on 4.6.2010 and he was declared as the successful bidder for the period 2010-11 to 2012-13 and the same was also approved by the Assistant Commissioner by proceedings dated 7.6.2010. So far as petitioners 23 and 24, it is stated that they are the leaseholders for the period 2009-10 to 2011- 12 for one acre each which was approved by the Assistant Commissioner by proceedings dated 25.6.2009. The other petitioners were also approved leaseholders for the previous years and the period of their lease has already expired. Thus it is contended that except petitioners 4, 23 and 24 all other petitioners are continuing in occupation without any valid lease in their favour and as such they are all encroachers. The stand taken in the counter-affidavits filed by the 5th respondent has been disputed by the petitioners and in their reply affidavits it is stated that auction was never held as contended in the counter-affidavits and that they were allowed to continue in possession as lessees all through receiving the rents enhanced from time to time. It is also stated that that the officials of the 5th respondent used to take signatures on papers giving an impression that the lease in their favour was being extended from time to time. The petitioners also denied service of notice in Form-I. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. The specific plea of the petitioners that the families of the petitioners have been in occupation of the lands in question for the past more than 100 years is not denied in the counter-affidavits. However it is contended that soon after the rules were made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003, all the petitioners were served with Form-I notices under Rule 5 (1) informing them that the lease held by them stood cancelled by virtue of the provisions in Section 82 (1) of the Act and that the leasehold rights in respect of the said lands were proposed to be leased out as per the Rules and calling upon them to forthwith hand over possession of the lands failing which they should be evicted invoking the provisions under Sections 84, 85 & 86 of the Act treating them as encroachers in the order passed under Section 83 (4) of the Act. Though the plea of the petitioners that they are landless poor persons has not been denied, it is contended by the 5th respondent that the petitioners never made any application before the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for declaration as landless poor persons as provided under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules. The material placed before this Court by the learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent shows that almost all the petitioners participated in the public auctions held during the previous years and many of them were declared as successful bidders and the lease in their favour was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur under different proceedings. The record placed before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel included the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Guntur, approving the leasehold rights. However as the period of lease stood expired, the continuation of the said petitioners in the leased land after the expiry of lease has no legal sanction and they fall within the meaning of the “encroacher” as defined under the Explanation to Section 83 (1) of the Act. It is also clear from the record placed before this Court that the petitioners never made any claim as landless poor persons and they had voluntarily participated in the public auction held in the previous years. As per Rule 3 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003, the cultivating tenant who claims to be a landless poor person has to seek determination by the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction immediately after coming into force of the Rules. The Rules do not say that such declaration has to be sought only after service of Form-I notices. Hence even assuming that Form-I notices were not served on the petitioners, there is no justifiable reason for the failure of the petitioners to seek a declaration that they are landless poor persons. As the Rules have been made in the year 2003, the failure of the petitioners to take any steps for determination as landless poor even after a lapse of about 7 years would only go to show that either they are not landless poor persons or they are not willing to exercise the option under Section 82 (2) of the Act. As the petitioners failed to exercise their option to avail the statutory benefit under Section 82 (2) of the Act, the 5th respondent cannot be found fault with in putting the leasehold rights to public auction. Hence the impugned auction notice issued by the 5th respondent being in accordance with the mandatory statutory provisions cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. The fact that the land in question is in occupation of the petitioners even after the expiry of lease does not disentitle the 5th respondent to put the leasehold rights to auction. However the fact remains that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the lands in question as on today. As could be seen from the counter-affidavits filed by the 5th respondent, except the possession of the petitioners 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 & 15 in W.P.No.16337 of 2010 and the petitioners 4, 23 & 24 in W.P.No.16338 of 2010 all other petitioners are continuing in occupation as mere encroachers. Hence it is for the 5th respondent to take appropriate steps following due process of law for removal of the said encroachments. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.07.2010 gbs