IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11415 of 2008 Between: Vanaga Sattemma W/o. Late Nageswara Rao R/o. Ryali (V), Atreyapuram (M), East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada. 2 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Sri Uma Kamandaleswara Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Manager, Ryali (V), Atreyapuram (M), East Godavari District. .....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 writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the order dated 25.03.2008 in Appeal No.262/2007 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in M.A.No.1290/2007 (in Rc.No.A4/4846/2003) dated 23.06.2007 by not considering the representation filed by the petitioner for continuing her as tenant of dry land belonging to the 3rd respondent measuring Ac.2.05 cents in R.SNo.68/2 situated Ryali (V), Atreyapuram (M), East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order not to dispossess the petitioner being lawful tenant from the scheduled land, thereby to collect the enhanced makhtas as prevailing in the vicinity of the village. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} O R D E R: The petitioner was a lessee in respect of Ac.2.05 cents of land in R.S.No.68/2 situated in Ryali village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District belonging to Sri Uma Kamandaleswara Swamy Temple, the 3rd respondent herein. She approached the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, the 2nd respondent herein, with a prayer to declare her as landless poor for the purpose of continuing as tenant as provided under Section 82 of the Endowments Act. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 23.6.2007. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Joint Commissioner, the 1st respondent herein, and the appeal was also rejected on 25.3.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent-Temple and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents. While providing for automatic termination of leases, Section 82 of the Endowments Act accorded some protection to the persons, who are landless poor. In case existing lessee is found to be a landless poor, the lease does not stand automatically cancelled and it would be subject to other procedure. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent through a reasoned order and the same was confirmed by the 1st respondent. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the conclusions arrived at by the 1st and 2nd respondents. Further, the petitioner is not able to point out any jurisdictional errors. The land, which is the subject matter of the lease, is also liable to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the status of the tenant. Further, default if any committed by the lessee would be another factor to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the lease. On the claim of the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 have taken the relevant factors into account and arrived at an appropriate conclusion. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Even if the petitioner is ceases to be a tenant, she can participate in the auction as and when held for the purpose of granting the leasehold rights. Whether or not the petitioner emerges the highest bidder, her case shall be considered for being granted fresh lease in case she offers the highest bid amount that is fetched in the auction. In terms of the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 28.05.2008 bcj