IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9228 of 1999 Between: D. Subba Reddy S/o. Raghava Reddy R/o. Narayanareddipeta, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 Sri Chennakesavaswamy Vari Devasthanam, rep. by its Executive Officer, Gudipallipadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. 5 Tanneeru Madhu S/o. Venkaiah R/o. Davispet, Indukurpet Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the section 75 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 and the directions issued by the 2nd respondent to his subordinates directing them to hold public auction to lease out the Agricultural lands while statutory tenants is subsisting and the action of the 4th respondent in holding public auction on 24-4-99 of the lease hold rights in respect of Ac.4-41 cents of Wet land comprised in Survey No. 206 and 240 of Gudipallipadu village, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District and the declaration of 5th respondent as the successful bidder as illegal, arbitrary, descriminatory and violative of Art. 14, 19 (i) (g) 21 and 300-A of the const. of India and also offends the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession & enjoyment in respect of the above said land while the statutory lease is subsisting and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: M/SC.KODANDA RAM The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was cultivating tenant of the 4th respondent temple land and for default of payment of rents, the 4th respondent filed A.T.C.No.21 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nellore, seeking eviction of the petitioner and eviction orders have been passed on 25.2.1995, against which the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.19 of 1995 before the District Judge, Nellore and no stay has been granted in the said C.M.A and the same is pending. The temple land of the 4th respondent admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.41 cents in Sy.No.206 and 240 of Gudipallipadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District, was put to auction on 24.4.1999 in which five persons have participated and the 5th respondent became highest bidder on an annual muktha of 6 putties 13 tumus of paddy per year and he also paid one year muktha as an advance. As the 5th respondent being the highest bidder, he was also put in possession of the said land on 5.5.1999. Questioning the said action, this writ petition has been filed contending that Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal and unconstitutional and he being the tenant cannot be evicted under the provisions of the Act and he can be evicted under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the said controversy has been resolved by virtue of the amendment of Act 28 of 2002 and the provisions of the Tenancy Act have no application to the endowment land. Admittedly, so far as the declaration under Section 75 of the Act itself is concerned, absolutely no grounds have been stated in the writ petition as to how Section 75 of the Act is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner also filed O.S.No.6 of 1999 on the file of the Vacation Judge for permanent injunction and obtained interim injunction by suppressing all the material facts. However, in the pending C.M.A.No.9 of 1995, no stay has been granted and therefore the eviction orders passed in the said A.T.C.No.21 of 1988 has become final as the petitioner has committed default in payment of rents. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in conducting public auction on 24.4.1999. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that the interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 10.7.2009 kpr