THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12855 OF 2010 Dated: 13.07.2010 Between : Perugu Swamy Reddy … Petitioner And 1. Sri Eswara and Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Gargeyapuram Village and mandal, kurnool District. Rep. by its Executive Officer and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12855 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent temple in putting the leasehold rights of the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.3.08 cents situated in Sy.No.465 at Gargeyapuram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District to auction for the year 2010-2011 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the said land from the year 1991 pursuant to a Registered Lease Deed, dated 20.06.1991 executed by the 1st respondent temple. It is stated that in the year 2008 when the 1st respondent temple proposed to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights in respect of the land in his possession, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10319 of 2008 and this Court stayed the confirmation of the auction. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner continued in possession and the writ petition is pending. Subsequently the impugned auction notice came to be issued proposing to conduct the auction on 2.6.2010 for grant of leasehold rights in respect of the very same land for the year 2010-2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the auction notice which was hand-written and did not contain any date was not given wide publicity as required under Rule 11 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2003’) made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003. It is also contended that the action of the 1st respondent in proposing to conduct the auction for grant of leasehold rights in respect of the land in possession of the petitioner is impermissible under law. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent temple, it is stated that wide publicity was given for the public auction scheduled by circulation of the pamphlets in the village and also by beat of tom-tom on 20.05.2010. Accordingly, the auction was held on 2.6.2010 in which 8 persons had participated paying the deposit of Rs.1,000/- each. One B. Ramaswamy was declared as the highest bidder having quoted Rs.18,500/- per year as against Rs.6,200/- for 3 years paid by the petitioner for the last time in the year 2006. It is stated that after 2006 the petitioner had not been paying any rents and the land had also been lying fallow without any cultivation. It is also stated that even in the auction held on 5.5.2008, Rs.26,200/- per year was quoted by the highest bidder, however the same could not be finalized due to the interim order granted in W.P.No.10319 of 2008. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the auction notice, which was circulated just two days prior to the auction was in contravention of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2003 and therefore the auction is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. While relying upon a decision of this Court in I.CHANDRA RAO v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE SEETHARAMA CHANDRASWAMIVARI DEVASTHANAM, BHADRACHALAM[1] the learned counsel further contended that even assuming that the petitioner was an encroacher, without evicting him following due process of law, the 1st respondent ought not to have conducted auction for grant of leasehold rights for the year 2010-2011. I have also heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent temple. The material placed before this Court substantiated the plea in the counter-affidavit that the auction notice was published in the village by beat of tom-tom on 20.5.2010. It is also the specific case of the 1st respondent that pamphlets were distributed in the entire village on 20.5.2010 informing the public that the auction would be held on 2.6.2010. However while pointing out that the auction notice did not contain any date, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it was actually circulated in the village just two days prior to the auction. It is true that the auction notice did not contain any date. However the material placed before this Court shows that it was distributed and published in the village by beat of tom-tom on 20.5.2010, whereas the auction was held on 2.6.2010. The fact that 8 persons had participated in the auction held on 2.6.2010 on payment of the deposit of Rs.1,000/- each itself shows that there was adequate publicity for the auction. Hence the vague allegation of the petitioner that the auction notice was not published in compliance with Rule 11 of the Rules, 2003 cannot be accepted. So far as the contention that it is not permissible for the 1st respondent to conduct the auction unless and until the possession is recovered from the petitioner following due process of law is concerned, it is to be noticed that in the counter-affidavit it has been specifically pleaded by the 1st respondent that the land had been in possession of the temple for a long time and that the petitioner had not entered into the land from the year 2006. It is also pleaded that the land had been left fallow from the year 2006. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner disputing the specific plea taken in the counter- affidavit and no other material could be placed before this Court to show that the petitioner is continuing in possession of the land in question. Apparently, the petitioner is attempting to stall the auction proceedings, taking advantage of the pendency of W.P.No.10319 of 2008. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 13.07.2010 gbs [1] 1999 (3) ALT 267