IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 17032 of 2008 Between: 1 Merla Saibabu S/o. Late Chandra Rao R/o. Rayali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 2 Merla Polamma W/o. Late Chandra RAo R/o. Rayali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Sri Vagdevinagaramalakshmi Ammavaru Temple, rep. by its Manager, Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Appeal No.248 of 2007 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada and consequently, set aside the order in Appeal No.248 of 2007 of the 1st respondent conﬁrming the order in M.A.No.1293 of 2007 dated 23.06.2007 of the 2nd respondent as contrary to Sec 82(2) of the A.P. Act 30/87. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. S.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17032 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.08 cents of land situated in R.S.No.113/1A of Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to the 3rd respondent temple. It is stated that their predecessor-in-interest by name Merla Chandra Rao was the cutivating tenant and during his lifetime, he made a representation before the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry, seeking a declaration as landless poor persons. The said claim was dismissed by the 2nd respondent by order dated 23.6.2007. The appeal preferred by Merla Chandra Rao also ended in dismissal by the 1st respondent by order dated 25.3.2008. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent proposed to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights in respect of the land in question. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled by the son and widow of late Chandra Rao claiming that they are entitled to continue in possession. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. As could be seen, both the respondents 1 and 2 concurrently held that late Chandra Rao, who was the cultivating tenant, was not entitled for declaration as a landless poor person and his claim for the beneﬁt under Section 82 (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) was rejected. The said concurrent findings of fact recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 do not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that since there is a standing crop on the land in question which is raised by the petitioners, they may be permitted to continue in possession till the said crop is harvested. No such direction can be granted by this Court in the absence of any material to support their claim that they raised the crops. Hence, the petitioners are granted liberty to make appropriate representation before the 3rd respondent, in which event the 3rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. So far as the auction proposed to be conducted tomorrow is concerned, the petitioners herein are at liberty to participate in which event their bid shall also be considered along with the other participants. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.05.08.2008 gbs Note:- CC in 2 days. (B/O) gbs