THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.16405 OF 2011 DATED:28.10.2011 Between: Chodabathula Someswara Rao and another … Petitioners And The Commissioner Endowments Department Boggulakunta, Tilak Road Hyderabad and another … Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.16500 OF 2011 Between: Chodabathula Subba Rao and another … Petitioners The Commissioner Endowments Department Boggulakunta, Tilak Road Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NOs.16405 AND 16500 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the auction of leasehold rights in respect of Ac.5.45 cents and Ac.5.00 of land in Sy. No.55 of Gummaregula Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, for the period 2011-2012 to 2013-2014, as illegal and consequently to set aside the same, and to direct the second respondent – temple to refer the matter for determination of the status of the petitioners as small farmers to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions on the premise that they have been cultivating the said land as tenants of the second respondent – temple. It appears that the father of the first petitioner in both the writ petitions, namely, Veerabbai, was a tenant of the temple in respect of an extent of Acs.10.00 of land and he expired on 30.5.2008. The petitioners state that after the demise of Veerabbai, they came into possession of the said land and paying the lease amount. It is mainly on this premise, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent – temple. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the petitioners are the tenants of the second respondent – temple and hence they are entitled to remain in possession so long as their tenancy is in force. He further contends that the second respondent failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules’), issued in G.O. Ms. No.329, Revenue (Endowments.I), dated 11.3.2003. He further contends that the petitioners are marginal and small farmers and without deciding their claim, the second respondent cannot auction the leasehold rights. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the second respondent in the both the writ petitions. It is stated therein that the auction was held on 23.5.2011 and the lease has been approved in favour of the highest bidder, one Dasari Kameswara Rao, vide proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, in D. Dis. No.A3/5190/2011, dated 2.7.2011. It is further stated that due procedure was followed in conducting the auction and that the bidder has been put in possession on 23.5.2011. I have considered the respective contentions. Rule 11 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for publication of auction notice for conducting auction. It provides that auction notice shall be published in the language of the locality at least ten days prior to the date fixed for auction, by affixing notice on the notice board or on the front door of the institution concerned, or in the case of a specific endowment, on the notice board or on the front door of the office of the institution, by publication of the auction notice by beat of tom tom in the inhabitated area of the Gram panchayat where the lands are situated and also by distributing pamphlets about the proposed auction, by ensuring adequate publicity. In the instant case, the auction notification was issued on 7.5.2011 fixing the auction on 23.5.2011. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavits that the pamphlets dt.7.5.2011 were published and the auction was publicised by beat of tom tom on 10.5.2011, 12.5.2011, 16.5.2011, 19.5.2011 and 23.5.2011 in the concerned villages. As many as 24 persons signed the auctions conditions, twelve persons deposited the auction deposit amount and three persons participated in the auction. In the light of the said material and the specific averment, which is not denied by the petitioners, it cannot be said that the second respondent did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules, in conducting the auction. The contention of the petitioners that they are cultivating tenants is not liable to be accepted, firstly, for the reason that no lease deed has been placed before this Court and there is no pleading in the affidavits as to when the lease was granted to them. As noticed above, the father of the first petitioner in both the writ petitions was a tenant, who expired on 30.5.2008. Merely because the father of the first petitioner was a tenant, the petitioners would not automatically become the tenants without they being recognised as such by granting lease in their favour. The petitioners even though pleaded that they are small farmers, indisputably they have not approached the proper and competent authority to recognise their status. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the contentions, since the petitioners have not established that they are the cultivating tenants of any lease granted by the second respondent, they have no right to challenge the auction. Further more, as the second respondent has followed the procedure, conducting of the auction cannot be found fault with. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners are still in possession of the land and unless they are dispossessed, no rights can be conferred on the bidder. On the other hand, the counter affidavits filed by the second respondent specifically states that possession of the land has been handed over to the bidder on 23.5.2011 and he is cultivating the land by raising the paddy crop. I do not have any reason to disbelieve the statement of the officials. I am therefore of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition should also fail for yet another reason. Even though the auction is challenged in the writ petitions, which were filed on 14.6.2011, the successful bidder has not been impleaded as party respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions should fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 28.10.2011 bnr