THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 17322 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioners claim to be an agricultural tenant of land in an extent of Acs. 8.86 cents in Sy. No. 658 of Nandikotkur village, Kurnool District, belonging to respondent No.2-Matam. The first petitioner states that originally, her husband, namely Chinna Ramulu, was granted the leasehold rights in respect of the land in question for a period of three years, in a public auction that was conducted on 07.06.1973. The petitioners state that even though the said three years expired long back in the year 1976, still they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so the petitioners state that respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice dated 06.07.2010 proposing to auction the leasehold rights of the land in question. The petitioners state that they being landless poor farmers, are entitled to continue to hold the land in question on lease or purchase the same as per the provisions of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rule 5 of the Rules made thereunder, and as such, the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notice, for auctioning the leasehold rights of the land in question, is illegal and arbitrary. This Court, by order dated 20.07.2010 while admitting the writ petition, passed interim orders permitting the respondents to go ahead with the proposed auction, but directed not to confirm the same for a period of four weeks, and gave liberty to the petitioner to participate in the auction, and extended the same subsequently until further orders. Praying to vacate the above order, respondent No.2-Matam filed petition accompanied by detailed counter-affidavit. In the counter, respondent No.2 stated that originally the land in question was granted on lease on 07.06.1973, to late M. Chinna Ramudu, who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, on an annual ret of Rs.1,600/- per acre for a period of five ears, which expired during 1978-79. Thereafter, on 08.05.2003, respondent No.1 issued notice to Sri. M. Chinna Ramudu, in Form-I under Rule 5(1) of the Rules made under the Act, for declaring them as landless poor persons, but neither Sri. M. Chinna Ramudu, nor the petitioners approached respondent No.1, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be declared as landless poor persons, so as to have leasehold rights over the land in question or purchase the same. After expiry of the lease in the year 1979, no lease was extended in favour of the petitioners. While so, this Court, on 19.10.2010, as agreed to by the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Matam, permitted respondent No.2 to conduct auction for leasing out the land in question, but not to finalize the auction proceedings, and gave liberty to the petitioner to participate in the auction, and further directed respondent No.2 to submit his report. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed affidavit, stating that pursuant to the above direction, he issued notice dated 04.11.2010 proposing to conduct auction of leasehold rights on 19.10.2010. Questioning the said auction notice, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P. No. 28361 of 2010, but this Court did not stay the auction, but permitted the petitioners to participate in the auction. The auction was conducted on 19.11.2010, in which one Mangala Vijaya Bhaskar S/o. Ramudu, who offered Rs.1,40,000/- was declared as the highest bidder in respect of the land in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Originally, Sri. M. Chinna Ramudu, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, was granted leasehold rights of the land in question, for a period of five years from 07.06.1973 on a yearly rent of Rs.1,600/- per month. The said lease expired during 1978-79, and as on today, it is the admitted case of the petitioners, that no lease subsists in their favour. Even though the petitioners contend that they being land less poor persons, are entitled to continue in the lease or purchase the same, the fact remains, respondent No.1 is said to have issued notice dated 08.05.2003, for declaring them as land less poor persons, but the petitioners did not respond to the notice. That being so, the petitioners cannot contend that they being landless poor persons, are entitled to have the land in question on lease or purchase the same. The petitioners, who are legal heirs of the original lessee, after expiry of the lease granted in their favour, and no lease having been granted to them, have no manner of right whatsoever to continue in the land. Even though the petitioners have no legal right to continue in the land, yet they want to continue in the land by paying a paltry sum of Rs.1,600/- per annum per acre, and on one pretext or the other, they want to stall the auction proceedings and continue n the land, which cannot be permitted. Further, even though this Court, as agreed to by the petitioners and respondent No.2, by order dated 19.10.2010, permitted respondent No.2 to put the leasehold rights of the land in question to auction and gave liberty to the petitioners to participate in the auction, it s the case of respondent No.2 that the petitioners instead of participating in the auction, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 28361 of 2010 before this Court, but this Court did not stay the auction, and as a result, the auction was conducted by respondent No.2 on 19.11.2010, in which one Mangala Vijaya Bhaskar S/o. Ramulu, having offered Rs.1,40,000/-, stood as the highest bidder for the land in question. Inasmuch as in the auction conducted by respondent No.2, pursuant to the orders of this Court, fetched more rent than what the petitioners offered for the land in question, and the petitioners not being landless poor persons and there being no lease in existence in their favour in respect of the land in question, it would not be in the interest of respondent No.2-Matam, to interfere with the impugned auction notice at the instance of the petitioners, who have no right, much less any legal right to continue in the land in question. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 29th December, 2010 KSR