IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17851 of 2009 Between: G. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Subbaiah .... PETITIONER AND The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II Tirupathi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17851 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 26-08-2009 and granted status quo for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. W.V.MP. No.3194 of 2009 is filed by respondent No.3 to vacate the interim order. At this stage the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad representing respondent No.3 made a request for the final disposal of the writ petition on the ground that no separate counter affidavit need to be filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. 2. Sri T. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the further stand taken in the reply affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under challenge not being in accordance with law, the writ petition is to be allowed. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments had pointed out to the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and would maintain that inasmuch as convincing reasons had been recorded by respondent No.1, appellate authority, it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 4. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and also would further explain under what circumstances the private negotiations had been under taken. The learned counsel also would submit inasmuch as conditions to be satisfied by the petitioner had not been satisfied, the appellate authority, respondent No.1 is well justified in reversing the order made by respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur District. The learned standing counsel had also taken this Court through the reasons, which had been recorded, relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the rules. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.33 of 2004, dated 22-12-2007 reversing the order passed by respondent No.2 through his proceedings bearing Rc.No.A2/11671/03, dated 01-01-2004 as illegal and ultra-virus to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India besides being in violation of the provisions of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 and the rules framed there under on the subject declaring that the petitioner is landless poor entitled to continue in possession of an extent of Ac.2-37 cents situated in D.No.250 of Duggirala Village of Guntur District. 7. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent No.3 is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.2-37 cents of wet land situated in D.No.250 of Duggirala Village and Mandal of Guntur District. Originally, his father- in-law late Avula Venkaiah having participated in the auction conducted on 19-04-1966 became the highest bidder for a period of six years lease i.e., from 1376 Fasli to 1381 Fasli on an understanding to pay yearly maktha of Rs.1,000/- on or before 31st March every year. Since, the said lease was approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 11-05-1966 being the competent authority, his father-in-law having taken possession of property, continued in possession as a cultivating tenant till his death. Consequently, upon the death of his father-in-law, his mother-in-law having been recognised as a tenant, continued in possession of the same, while enhancing the rate of maktha. On consideration of these facts, it is clear that his father-in-law having been the cultivating tenant of the property, by virtue of an approved lease continued in possession of the same and after his death, his mother-in-law continued in possession of the same. Several other facts had also been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 8. G.O.Ms. No.379, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, had also been referred to and a specific stand had been taken that an application was filed by the petitioner praying to declare him as a “landless poor person”. After conducting appropriate enquiry, respondent No.2 on appreciation of the material available on record, in accordance with the rules, made an order and respondent No.1 without appreciating the facts in law had reversed the same. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 several facts had been narrated. It is stated that the wet land in question measuring Ac.2-37 cents in D.No.250 of Duggirala Village is now in absolute possession and enjoyment of respondent No.3 temple and at present it is a fallow land. 10. It is further stated that this respondent temple was classified under Section 6(c) of Endowments Act 30/87 and is under the purview and administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. 11. It is stated that the respondent temple is the absolute owner of the wet land in an extent of Ac.2-37 cents in D.No.250 at Duggirala Village, Guntur District. The petitioner herein participated and became highest bidder in the public auction of lease hold rights conducted by the temple on 20-04-1999 on a maktha of 38 bags of paddy for the entire land per year. The said lease was approved for a period of 3 years i.e., from 1999 - 2000 to 2001 - 2002 by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in his D.Dis.No.C1/40687/1999, dated 12-08-1999. After the completion of the said period the petitioner continued in the land without obtaining fresh lease approval and was thus squatting on the land as an encroacher. 12. When all these leases stood cancelled as per Section 82 of Endowments Act 30/87, and after coming into force of the Rules through G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11-03-2003, the respondent temple issued Rule 5(1) notice to the petitioner herein. Thereafter he approached the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, who is respondent No.2 herein, seeking to recognize him as landless poor person. 13. It is also stated that respondent No.2 passed order declaring him as landless poor person vide order in Rc.No.A2/11671/2003, dated 01- 01-2004 in favour of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, he had been continuing in the land but without paying the damages properly and became a chronic defaulter. Even by the date of recognition of the petitioner herein as landless poor the petitioner fell in arrears of 75 bags of paddy i.e., 37 bags for the year 2002-2003 and 38 bags for the year 2003-2004. Inspite of repeated demands the petitioner failed to pay the lease arrears. This respondent temple preferred an appeal to the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tirupathi, who is the appellate authority against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments as per Rule 4 of the Rules. After due hearing the said Appeal No.33 of 2004 was allowed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Tirupathi i.e., respondent No.1, as per his order dated 22-12-2007, while setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Guntur in Rc.No.A2/11671/2003, dated 01-01-2004, through which the petitioner was declared as landless poor. Against the said order the petitioner filed the present petition after a long delay. 14. It is further stated that the petitioner is not at all the tenant with approved lease of the said land by the date of the Act coming into force. He is not entitled to be recognized as landless poor person and as such the orders passed by respondent No.1 herein are in accordance with statutory provision under Section 82 of Endowments Act 30/87. 15. Inspite of the order in Appeal No.33 of 2004, the petitioner had been cultivating the land and enjoying the fruits of the land for the year 2008 – 2009 also. The petitioner paid the damages for use and occupation, which were received by this respondent temple for the year 2008 – 2009. It is further stated that the petitioner failed to clear of the arrears of 75 bags of paddy till today as mentioned supra. Hence, the respondent temple was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.644 of 2004 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,626/- along with subsequent costs and interest. The said Court passed a decree on 17-02-2006 along with subsequent costs and interest. But inspite of the decree the petitioner herein failed to comply with the said decree and failed to clear of the said arrears. 16. It is also stated that this respondent temple proposed to conduct public auction of lease hold rights to the said land for the year 2009 – 2010, repeatedly on four occasions i.e., 27-04-2009, 13-07-2009, 29-07- 2009 and 13-08-2009, but due to the continuous litigation and due to the influence of the petitioner, no bidder have came forward to bid in the auction. As such this respondent temple sought for permission for self- cultivation/leasing out land on private negotiations. The Assistant Commissioner issued permission to lease out the land on private negotiations as per his order in L.Dis.No.A2/8255/09, dated 27-08-2009. In view of the said order, this respondent negotiated with the farmers and accordingly one V. Krishna Rao, who is another tenant of this respondent temple land came forward with approved lease for cultivating the land for the year 2009 – 2010. But the petitioner with false averments obtained status quo order dated 26-08-2009. 17. A reply affidavit had been filed again reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 18. On a careful analysis of the order under challenge, since, respondent No.1 after recording reasons, came to the conclusion that the conditions to be satisfied had not been satisfied, had reversed the order passed by respondent No.2. 19. This Court does not see any illegality or legal infirmity in the said order. However, it is needless to say that putting the property in question to public auction is the general rule and proceeding with private negotiations always would be an exemption. No doubt, some impracticality had been explained, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, let the respondents in the writ petition take appropriate steps for putting this land to public auction instead of private negotiations. Subject to the above observation, since the writ petition is devoid of merits the same shall stand dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is needless to say that the writ petitioner is also at liberty to participate in the proposed public auction, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 10, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/O.MD