THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 12969 of 2010 Date: 19.07.2010 Between: Medara Veeraiah and 22 others. ….Petitioners And The Manager, Nalgonda District and 2 others. ….Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 12969 of 2010 O R D E R : The petitioners herein claim to be the lessees in respect of the agricultural lands belonging to Sri Seetharamachandra Swami Temple in Sy.No.527/1 of Lingagiri village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is stated that they have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the said lands as lessees since 1990, pursuant to the renewals granted from time to time. It is claimed that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). However, the 1st respondent-temple rejected the petitioner’s request for renewal of the lease in their favour for the year 2006-2007. Subsequently, notices were issued by the 1st respondent-temple alleging that the petitioners committed default in payment of lease amounts and calling upon them to pay the same within seven days. There was also an attempt by the 1st respondent to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands in their occupation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.4352 of 2010 in which an interim order was passed on 26.02.2010 directing to maintain status quo. However, the said writ petition was dismissed for default on 21.04.2010 and thereupon, public auction was held by the 1st respondent and it was claimed that the leasehold rights in respect of the lands in occupation of the petitioners were granted to the successful bidders for the year 2010-2011 in the said auction. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed on 08.06.2010 seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-temple in conducting public auction on 29.05.2010 in respect of Acs.48.0 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.527/1 of Lingagiri village without issuing public notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the public auction is arbitrary and illegal. Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, who appeared for the 1st respondent- temple at the stage of admission itself submitted under instructions that pursuant to the auction held on 29.05.2010, the leases were granted to the successful bidders and the same were also approved by the competent authority on 31.05.2010 and the successful bidders were also put in possession. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that auction notice was published in the village on 19.05.2010 in compliance with the procedure prescribed under the statutory rules and having been satisfied that the auction was properly held, the same was approved by the competent authority on 31.05.2010. However, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the auction notice was not properly published in the locality. It is also contended that the petitioners are landless poor persons who are entitled to the benefit under Section 82 of the Act and more over, they are continuing in possession and therefore, the impugned action of the 1st respondent in putting the leasehold rights to public auction for the year 2010-2011 is arbitrary and illegal. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioners to show that there was a determination by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments with regard to the claim of the petitioners that they are landless poor persons. Even assuming that the petitioners are landless poor, the petitioners admittedly came into possession of the land in question only in the year 1990 and they were not continuing as cultivating tenants as on the date of commencement of the Act. As such, they are not entitled to the statutory benefit under Section 82 of the Act. Merely because the lease in their favour was extended from time to time from the year 1990, the respondents cannot be compelled to act contrary to the statutory mandate. The material available on record also shows that notices were served on the petitioners alleging default in payment of rents. Viewed from any angle, the action of the 1st respondent in putting the leasehold rights to public auction cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Moreover, the auction was already held on 29.05.2010 and the leases granted were also approved by the competent authority on 31.05.2010. In the circumstances, the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 19 .07.2010 KLP