THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23165 OF 2009 Date: 09.03.2010 Between: T. Janakirami Reddy. … Petitioner And The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23165 OF 2009 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in seeking to auction the lease hold rights of an extent of Ac.1.75 cts belonging to the Prasanna Chennakesava Swamy Temple of Inamadugu Village, and in fixing the auction schedule on 30.10.2009 as arbitrary and illegal and to consequently set aside the Auction Notice dated 20.10.2009. The case of the petitioner is that he was permitted to cultivate the land belonging to the 2nd respondent–temple in the year 1967; the Chairman of the Trust Board had approved his tenancy; the land was dry land and not wet land; originally the Maktha was Rs.925/- per annum which was enhanced to Rs.2000/-; at present the Maktha is Rs.4000/- per annum; he had incurred expenditure to bring the land under cultivation and had also obtained electricity connection to cultivate the land; ever since 1967 he was in possession of the land; he planted bethel leave garden in June, 2009 which would be ready for harvest in the last week of February, 2010; his family was surviving on the income from the said land; he was a landless poor person; in September 2009 he made attempts to pay the Maktha of Rs.5000/- but the said amount was not received; and, in the meanwhile, the land was sought to be put to auction. At the admission stage no interim orders were passed in this writ petition and this Court merely observed that the auction held would be subject to further orders in the Writ Petition. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, would submit that the auction was held on the scheduled date i.e., 30.10.2009; the highest bid received was Rs.57,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- hitherto being paid by the petitioner; and possession of the land has been handed over to the highest bidder. It is not even the petitioner’s case that he continues to hold the land, belonging to the Prasanna Chennakesava Swamy Temple, under lease by virtue of any lease agreement entered into between him and the respondents. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was ever granted lease of the land belonging to the 2nd respondent–temple. Section 82(2) of Act 30/87 confers a right of purchase/tenancy provided a landless poor person had a lease in his favour for more than six years continuously. In as much as there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was ever granted lease of the land in question, (no lease agreement has been placed on record nor does the petitioner aver that a lease agreement was entered into), no right accrues in his favour under Section 82(2) of Act 30/87. The very fact that the respondent temple has secured a lease amount of more than ten times the amount hitherto being paid by the petitioner would necessitate this Court refraining from interference with the auction proceedings. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that this Court should show indulgence and permit him to continue to remain in illegal occupation of lands belonging to the 2nd respondent on payment of 1/10th of the annual lease rent agreed to be paid by the highest bidder in the auction. It is well to remember that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and a Writ is not issued as of right or as a matter of course. (C.R.Reddy Law College Employees’ Association, Eluru W.G.District vs. Bar Council of India, New Delhi[1]). As the power exercised by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary it need not be exercised in every case where there is an error of law. One of the limitations imposed by this Court, on itself, is that it would not exercise jurisdiction unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. It would not allow itself to be turned into a court of appeal to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice. (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah[2]). Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, this Court will exercise its discretionary power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. This Court is required to keep larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, would it intervene in the matter. (Air India limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited[3]). In any event, since there is no subsisting lease of the lands in question the action of the respondents in seeking to auction leasehold rights thereof cannot be faulted. I see no reason, therefore, to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Date: 09.03.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] 2004(5) ALD 180 (DB) [2] AIR 1955 SC 425 [3] 2000(2)SCC 617