IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16209 of 2005 Between: 1 P.Subbarao, S/o.Akkaiah, R/o.Jagarlamudi (V) Yeddanapudi (M) Prakasam District. 2 G.Appaiah S/o.Seethaiah R/o.Jagarlamudi (V) Yeddanapudi (M) Prakasam District. 3 S.seetharavamma W/o.Seshaiah R/o.Jagarlamudi (V) Yeddanapudi (M) Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Manager, Inkollu group of temples, Inkollu (V&M), Prakasam District. 3 Sri Chennakesava Swami Temple, Jagarlamudi rep by its Manager, Jagarlamudi (V) Yeddanapudi Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.C.S.P. GHANTA For MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition 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 the action of the respondents in seeking to auction the leasehold rights of lands admeasuring Acs.2.73 cents, Acs.2.70 cents and Acs.4.90 cents comprised in Survey Nos.217, 217/1 and 281/1 respectively of Jagarlamudi Village, Yeddanapudi Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri R.C.S.P. Ghanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments. The petitioners are the tenants of the above-mentioned lands belonging to respondent No.2. While there is no dispute about their tenancy, the dispute persisted with respect to their status as land less poor persons and the period, for which, they were the tenants for the purpose of conferring right on them to exercise their option under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). The grievance of the petitioners is that while their applications for declaring them as small farmers were pending under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules’), the respondents proposed to auction the leasehold rights of the lands in their occupation. Hence, they filed this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District, respondent No.1, it is stated inter alia that the enquiry into the applications filed by the petitioners was held and that petitioner No.1 was declared as small farmer, whereas, the applications of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were rejected on the ground that while petitioner No.2 is not in possession of the leased land continuously for a period of six years as on the date of commencement of the Act as required under Section 82 of the Act, petitioner No.3 was cultivating Acs.6.64 cents of temple’s dry land, which exceeded the statutory limit of Acs.5.00 of land and was also in arrears of maktha. The fact that respondent No.1 adjudicated the status of the petitioners as claimed in his counter-affidavit is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He, however, pointed out certain discrepancies in the counter-affidavit, in particular, the admission made by respondent No.1 in paragraph 4 to the effect that out of Acs.6.65 cents of land held by petitioner No.3 as tenant, Ac.1.70 cents is uncultivable waste land and submitted that in the face of this admission, the order of respondent No.1 in rejecting the application of petitioner No.3 to declare her as small farmer cannot be sustained. Though there is substance in this contention of the learned counsel, in view of the fact that the order of respondent No.1 is not the subject matter of this writ petition, this Court is not inclined to go into this issue in this writ petition. Liberty is given to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to file a statutory appeal under Rule 4 of the Rules before the appellate authority to question the order of respondent No.1. Since the impugned auction of the lands has become abortive in view of the stay granted by this Court, the cause in the writ petition, as it is conceived, does not survive for consideration. While holding that petitioner No.1 is entitled to exercise his option under Section 82(2) of the Act, liberty is given to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to file statutory appeal against the order of respondent No.1. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WVMP.No.2762 of 2005 is also disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th JULY, 2008. kvni