THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.627 of 2010 08-09-2010 BETWEEN; Avuthu Siva Prasad Reddy son of Malla Reddy ...Appellant vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.627 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This appeal is directed against an interlocutory order of the learne single Judge dated 11-08-2010 in WPMP No.25076 of 2010 i W.P.No.19793 of 2010. The appellant is the writ petitioner who sought direction to the respondents including the 3rd respondent –Sri Ganga Bal Tripura Sundari Raja Rajeshwari Satisametha Tripura Tandaweswar Swamyvari Temple not to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights o the lands belonging to the temple, of an extent of Ac.1.92 cents i D.No.172 situated in Tadepalli Village and Mandal, Guntur District afte declaring condition No.7 of the conditions incorporated in the auctio notice dated 30-07-2010 as illegal and void. By the order appealed against, the learned single Judge directed tha the auction as proposed may go on; that it is open to the writ petitioner t participate in the same; and that the lease if any granted shall be subject t further orders by the Court. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of th temple lands having been granted lease by two Archakas of the templ and claimed further that the agricultural lands were leased to him by th said Archakas in 1994-95 and he is continuously in occupation o unbroken tenancy of the lands since then. Prima facie the petitioner does not appear to be a lawful tenan recognisable in law as such, of the lands in question in view of th provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religiou Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules,2003 (fo short “the 2003 Rules), which ordain that all leases shall be by a publi auction, so however that the competent authority (the Commissione Additional Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deput Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be i respect of temples having an annual income as specified in Rule.16 of th 2003 Rules) may on a request made in writing by the Executive Authority permit the lease of any property otherwise than by public auction, if he i satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the suggeste procedure is necessary and in the interests of the Institution or Endowmen as the case may be (Rule.7 of the 2003 Rules). Rule 8 of these Rules als enjoins that no lease shall be granted for a period exceeding three (3 years, unless the Executive Authority obtains prior permission of th Commissioner even before causing publication of the Notice unde Rule.11 of these Rules. Rule.18 of the 2003 Rules ordains that all leas deeds shall be in writing and shall be duly stamped and registere wherever so required by law at the expense of the lessee (tenant) an further that no person shall be placed in possession of the leased land o allowed to exercise his rights under the lease until he has executed th lease deed and complied with the applicable requirements of these Rules Rule 19 of these Rules enjoins further that any lease granted, continued o allowed to be continued otherwise than in accordance with these Rule shall be null and void and the person or persons in possession of the lan shall be deemed to be an encroacher within the meaning of the Section 8 of the Act. Rule 20 of these Rules mandates the cancellation of the leas if the tenant does not comply with any of the terms of the lease. Th learned counsel for the petitioner ambiguously urges that no written leas has been entered into between the appellant and the temple. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 enjoins that every leas irrespective of period thereof, is registerable. On a consideration of th conclave of the raft of the provisions considered herein above, it does no appear prima facie that the appellant/writ petitioner could be considered lessee of the agricultural lands of the temple and thus entitled to th benefits of Section 80 as a landless poor person. As there is no writte lease deed apparently, the question of complying with the statutoril mandatory requirements of Registration and Stamp duty do not arise. On the above analysis, we are not inclined to interdict the process o auction and would reiterate the observations of the learned single Judg that the auction as proposed by the auction notice dated 30-07-2010 ma be finalized so however that the appellant/petitioner shall also be at libert to participate in the auction, and may be considered for award of the leas if otherwise eligible for grant of lease in accordance with the process o auction and the provisions of the 2003 Rules. On the above premise, we find no error in the exercise of discretion b the learned single Judge warranting appellate interference against what i a mere an interim order. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed but with the observation above, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010. TSNR