IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13592 of 2005 Between: 1 Saladi Venkateswra Rao, S/o Sri Sattaiah Naidu, 2 Bonam Suryanarayana, S/o Sri Mutyalu, 3 Saladi Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Sri Kesavarao, 4 Kamisetty Narayana Rao, S/o Sri Satyanarayana, 5 Saladi Satyanarayana, S/o Sri Venkatanarayana, 6 Ventru Chinna Balayogi. S/o Sri Peda Naganna, 7 Saladi Venkata Reddy Naidu, S/o Sri Venkata Subba Rao, 8 Ventru Satyanarayana, s/o Sri Pedanaganna, (All the petitioners are agriculturists and residents of Mokkalatippa Village H/o Pallamkurru, Kotrenikona Mandal East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Sri Uppalapati Janakiyamma Feeding Choultry, Podagatlapalli Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District, rep. by its Manager. .....RESPONDENTS . Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri.N.Jaya Surya Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the respondent No.3: Sri S. Ravi Raj for Sri V.T.M.Prasad The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself 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 auction notification dated 08-06-2005 issued by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri N.Jaya Surya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri S.Ravi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. In this writ petition, the petitioners questioned the auction notification wherein the leasehold rights of the lands in occupation of the petitioners, apart from some other lands, were proposed to be leased out for the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. In view of order of stay granted by this Court, the impugned notification was not given effect to and the lands in question were not put to auction. With the expiry of the proposed lease period on 31-03-2008, the impugned notification itself has become abortive. Hence, I am of the view that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition as infructuous, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the claims of the petitioners, under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Rules, 2003, filed for declaration of the petitioners that they are landless poor persons, expeditiously, if not already disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WVMP Nos.181 of 2006 and 2246 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 1st July, 2008 vrn