THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13314 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein who claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.13.20 cents of land in R.S.Nos.91- 2, 259-2, 259-3, 259-4B, 294-2 and 264-1 situated in Poyyeru village, Mudinapalli Mandal, Krishna district ﬁled this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-temple in issuing auction notice dated 10.06.2007 proposing to conduct auction on 26.06.2007 for grant of leasehold rights of the lands in occupation of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the then trustee of the 1st respondent-temple ﬁled O.A.No.91 of 1958 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Vijayawada, under Section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 seeking recovery of possession of the property in question from one S. Madhavacharyulu and to issue a certiﬁcate to the eﬀect that the said property belongs to the 1st respondent-temple. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated 6.09.1963. Aggrieved by the same, Madhavacharylu ﬁled W.P.No.1151 of 1963. This Court by order dated 2.11.1967 allowed the said writ petition thereby quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 6.09.1963 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner HRCE Administration Department had granted possession certiﬁcate with a prejudged mind and thus the impugned order was in contravention of cardinal rules and natural justice. However, the matter was directed to be decided afresh by the then Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada without permitting either party to let-in any fresh evidence. Pursuant thereto, the matter was transferred to the ﬁle of Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada and renumbered as O.A.No.218 of 1985. Subsequently, in view of the enactment of Act 30 of 1987, the matter came up before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. However, in view of delegation of powers under Section 133(2)(b) of the Act 30 of 1987 the ﬁle was transmitted from the Regional Joint Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada and re- numbered as O.A.No.68 of 1990. After due enquiry, O.A.No.68 of 1990 was disposed of by order dated 1.04.1991 directing the person in management of the 1st respondent to approach the civil Court for possession of the land observing that the matter involved various questions relating to the nature of the property, title and adverse possession claimed by the respondents which were within the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Challenging the said order the managing trustee of the 1st respondent ﬁled W.P.No.7605 of 1999, which is still pending. While so, the impugned public notice dated 10.6.2007 was issued by the single Trustee of the 1st respondent- temple proposing to conduct public auction on 26.06.2007. This Court by order dated 25.06.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.16860 of 2007 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 10.06.2007. The 1st respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit and also a petition to vacate the interim stay dated 25.06.2007 contending that since the land in question was shown as belonging to the 1st respondent-temple in the Register prepared under Section 38 of the repealed Act by the Inspector, Endowments Department which was also counter signed by the Assistant Commissioner, Vijayawada on 26.11.1980, it is not open to the petitioner to claim title. While pointing out that the entry in the Register maintained under Section 38 was never challenged by any body, it is further alleged that the petitioner herein has never been in possession of the land in question. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Though in the counter aﬃdavit it is claimed that the 1st respondent-temple has been in uninterrupted possession of the land for the last 126 years, I am unable to accept the same having regard to the admitted fact that the 1st respondent could not succeed in its attempts for recovery of possession initiated in the year 1958 itself. No other material could be placed before this Court to show that subsequently they were put in possession. So far as the title claimed by the 1st respondent is concerned, admittedly, the same is the subject matter of W.P.No.7656 of 1999 which is still pending. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent has not approached the civil Court for declaration of its title as observed in O.A.No.68 of 1990. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent ought not to have proposed to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights in respect of the land in possession of the petitioner. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the interim stay dated 25.06.2007 granted by this Court since the 1st respondent proceeded with the auction on 26.06.2007, left with no alternative the existing tenant of the petitioner had participated and he was declared as the highest bidder and thus he is continuing in possession as on today as a nominee of the petitioner herein. The said successful bidder has been impleaded as respondent No.2 by order dated 4.12.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.33405 of 2007. Having regard to the subsequent events the prayer in the writ petition was also amended seeking a further declaration that the auction held on 26.06.2007 is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that since the auction itself is bad, the 1st respondent shall be directed to refund the bid amount. Though I am not inclined to grant such relief in this writ petition while leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent not to dispossess the petitioner and the 2nd respondent until the rival claims with regard to title of the property in question is decided. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed declaring the impugned auction notice as arbitrary and illegal and setting aside the auction held on 26.06.2007. No costs. 12.08.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13314 of 2007 Between: S. Raja Rajacharyulu S/o Venkatacharyulu, R/o 20-295-I, Brahmapuram, Chilakalapud (PO)-521002. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Sitharamaswamy Temple represented by its Single Trustee Sri. Kandula Venugopala Rao, Poyyeru Village, Mudinapalli Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT 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(s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein issuing auction notice dated 10-06-2007 with respect to property covered by R.S. No. 91-2, 259-2, 259-3, 259-4B, 294-2 and 264-1 of an extent of Acres 13 and 20 cents situated at Poyyeru Village, Mudinapalli mandal, as illegal, without jurisdiction and set a side the same as illegal and without jurisdiction, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem ﬁt, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13314 of 2007 Between: S. Raja Rajacharyulu S/o Venkatacharyulu, R/o 20-295-I, Brahmapuram, Chilakalapud (PO)-521002. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Sitharamaswamy Temple represented by its Single Trustee Sri. Kandula Venugopala Rao, Poyyeru Village, Mudinapalli Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT 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(s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein issuing auction notice dated 10-06-2007 with respect to property covered by R.S. No. 91-2, 259-2, 259-3, 259-4B, 294-2 and 264-1 of an extent of Acres 13 and 20 cents situated at Poyyeru Village, Mudinapalli mandal, as illegal, without jurisdiction and set a side the same as illegal and without jurisdiction, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem ﬁt, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following: