THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33810 of 2011 Date: 22.12.2011 Between: Pandiri Peda Veerraju … Petitioner and Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Manager, Veeravaram Village of Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33810 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri T.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Temple, and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent No.2. 2. At the outset, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with false averments by abusing the process of law. 3. This writ petition is filed complaining that the 1st respondent is not allowing the petitioner to participate in the auction of leasehold rights in respect of the land belonging to the temple, which is scheduled to be held on 23.12.2011. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Kakinada, conducted auction of leasehold rights in respect of an extent of Acs.6.26 cents situated in R.S.No.171 of Veeravaram Village, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District, on 30.9.2008. The petitioner became the highest bidder and the lease, which is for a period of three years from 2008-09 to 2010-11, was confirmed in his favour. Since the lease period expired, it appears that the 2nd respondent is contemplating to auction the leasehold rights of the said land for a further period. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following relief: “..…..Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not allowing me to participate in the auction to be held on 23.12.2011 of the leasehold rights of the land measuring Ac.6.26 cents in S.No.171 of Veeravaram Village, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G. District as illegal, and arbitrary and pass such other or further order………” 5. The aforesaid relief is sought, inter alia, on the following pleadings: “I submit that the land was not delivered to me as third parties were in possession of the said land. In informed the same to the respondents 1 & 2. I submit that I also issued a notice dated: 9.1.2009 to the 2nd respondent about it. As there was no reply I also got a notice dated: 15.12.2011 issued to the 2nd respondent through an advocate that the matter was not settled. I could not take possession of the land inspite of my best efforts. The 1st respondent got a notice dated: 24.10.2011 issued to me asking me to pay the arrears as if I am in possession of the land. I got a reply dated: 5.11.2011 issued to the said notice stating that though I was the highest bidder the land was not delivered to me and some third parties were in possession and cultivating the said land. The land was never delivered to me and as such the question of paying arrears does not arise. I learnt that the 1st respondent with a view to give the land on lease to his people is going to conduct auction of the land on 23.12.2011 at 10.30 A.M. He was not given any publicity for conducting the auction. Yesterday I approached the 1st respondent and enquired him about the auction. He told me that I am not eligible to participate in the auction as I am in arrears of rent. He told me that I will not be allowed to participate in the auction. I submit that the said action of the Executive Officer i.e., the 1st respondent herein as illegal and arbitrary. The question of my being arrears does not arise as I was not put in possession of the land and I never cultivated the same. I am interested in cultivating the land and I can protect my possession if the land is delivered to me. The 1st respondent will not allow me to participate in the auction. Therefore I am constrained to file the Writ Petition.” 6. By pleading as above, the petitioner has asserted that he was not put in possession of the subject land, therefore, there is no obligation on him to pay the lease amount and he cannot be prevented from participating in the auction. 7. During the course of hearing, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, while denying the averments of the petitioner that possession was not delivered to him, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has instituted suit O.S.No.132 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, by impleading the respondents herein viz., Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Kakinada and 9 others, for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule land. 8. Considering the said submissions, when this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.132 of 2009, the learned counsel produced the same, which is made part of the record. The said plaint contains the following averments: “The plaintiff humbly submit that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which form part of an extent of Ac.19.78 cents covered by R.S.No.171 Dry land situated in veeravaram village of Kadiam Mandal the said land is belongs to the Endowments Department of the defendants 1 & 2 approves the lease hold rights of land subject to put in public auction on 30.9.2008 for a period of three years for an annual maktha of Rs.71,870/- and the plaintiff is the highest bidder in auction for the lease of land for an extent of Ac.6.25 cents out of total extent of Ac.19.78 cents, covered in R.S.No.171/2 and the lease is approved by the First Defendant on 23.12.2008. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to read the plaint schedule as an integral part of the plaint to avoid repetition and for brevity of facts. The plaintiff further humbly submit that the plaint schedule property pursuant to the above lease the entire total extent was delivered by the defendants 1 & 2 after approved the lease in terms of lease on the eve of auction and the plaintiff is alone continued to cultivate the enjoyment of the same as a tenant paying rentals every year within the stipulated time and the defendants No.2 is passing rent receipts. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has been in open exclusive, uninterrupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as the absolute owner as stated supra and even otherwise the plaintiff has perfected his lease over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further humbly submitted that the defendants No.3 to 11 are colluded together and planning to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and disputing their status as tenant of the plaint schedule property and their remedy before the A.P. Tenancy Tribunal is taken away they are entitled to file this suit for adjudication of their rights and it is well settled that Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate and all the documents in support of the plaintiff case are in the custody of the defendants 1 and they would take steps for the production of all the material documents against the Endowments Department in due course.” 9. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint is as follows: “Cause of action for the suit arose on and from the date of lease approved by the defendants 1 and 2 on 23.12.2008, and when the plaintiff exercised rights of tenancy with regard to the same and took possession of the plaint schedule property along with the rest of the property i.e., Ac.19.78 cents and when the defendants 3 to 11 are trying to interfering dispossession of the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and where the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 11 are the resident of veeravaram village of Kadiam mandal and where the plaint schedule property situated are all within the jurisdiction of this court.” 10. The aforesaid facts pleaded in the plaint, which was filed as early as on 11.2.2009, clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has approached the civil Court pleading that possession of the land was delivered to him. 11. On a consideration of the plaint averments, it is demonstrably clear that the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are false. In fact, in his affidavit, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he has instituted the aforesaid suit. The conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court with false averments and suppression of the material facts is, therefore, apparently deliberate and made only to obtain orders fraudulently. 12. The writ petition, therefore, does not deserve admission and, at the same time, the petitioner deserves imposition of exemplary costs. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), which should be paid to the credit of the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court Buildings, Hyderabad, within a period of four weeks form today. 14. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42044 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. 15. Post the writ petition after four weeks under the caption “FOR COMPLIANCE”. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 22.12.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33810 of 2011 22.12.2011 (Msr)