IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12798 of 2005 Between: Bandi Rama Rao … Petitioner AND The Executive Officer, Sri Durgamalleswara Swamyvarla Devasthanam Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Sudharshan for Sri P. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondents 2&3: AGP for Endowments This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12798 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in asking the petitioner to vacate the land admeasuring Ac.8.27 cents in Sy.No.202/1, 3 of Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Gudavalli Village, Krishna District, without notice under Rule 5 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and without following procedure, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the abovementioned land belonging to respondent No.1 institution. His grievance is that without evicting him, auction notice dated 23.05.2005 was issued proposing to auction the leasehold rights of the said property. This Court, on 20.06.2005, granted interim direction. Therefore, the proposed auction would not have been held. The writ petition, to the extent of the grievance of the petitioner regarding proposed auction thus ceases to exist. As regards the plea of the petitioner that he cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, namely, by issuing notice under Rule 5 of the Rules, the same looks to me to be legitimate. If the petitioner is a tenant, consequent on the automatic termination of the tenancy under Section 82(1) of the Act, the competent authority is bound to issue notice under Rule 5 of the Rules. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, without following the procedure contemplated in the Rules. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16247 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.07.2008 ES