THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19190 of 2009 Dated : 28.10.2009 Between : Bandela Sri Ramulu & 2 others ….. Petitioners a n d The Commissioner of Endowments & others ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19190 OF 2009 ORDER : This Court ordered notice before admission on 10.09.2009 and granted status quo for a limited period, which was further extended for a further limited period. The third respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.3216 of 2009 to vacate the interim order. The para-wise remarks submitted by the second respondent also are placed before this Court. At the request of the counsel on the record, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. Sri T.Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, had taken this Court to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would maintain that the procedure as provided by the Act 30 of 1987 and also of the “Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003” had not been followed. The learned counsel also pointed out the other facts and circumstances and the material available on record and would maintain that in the light of the same, the writ petition is to be allowed. Per contra, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel representing the third respondent, had taken this Court to the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would maintain that the writ petition be dismissed. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments representing the first and second respondents had taken this Court to the para wise remarks submitted by R-2 and would maintain that in the light of the same the writ petition has to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsels and perused the respective stands taken by the parties in the pleadings and also the material available on record. The petitioners filed the present writ petition for a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to follow the rules framed under the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987 viz., “Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003” and consequently direct the second and third respondents to continue the lease in favour of the existing tenants on 2/3rd resent market rent and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the cultivating tenants of the lands belonging to the third respondent temple in Sy.No.68/2 of Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the said lands for the last thirty years and paying the Maktha regularly. It is also stated that the first writ petitioner is in possession of an extent of Ac.1-05 cents and cultivating the same by raising banana crop and the second writ petitioner is in possession of Ac.1-30 cents of land and cultivating the same and similarly the third writ petitioner is cultivating an extent of Ac.1-00 cents of land and cultivating the same by raising banana crop. The petitioners are not having any other land except the lands, which they were cultivating, and the certificates to that effect were filed along with the writ petition. It is also stated that the petitioners were unsuccessful before the authorities for being declared themselves as landless poor persons, which were subject matter of writ petitions filed before this Court and ultimately the plea of the petitioners for declaring themselves as ‘landless poor persons’ under the A.P.Endowments Act, 1987, was negatived and became final on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove any valid tenancy for a continuous period of six years prior to the commencement of A.P.Endowments Act, 1987. While so, after the writ petitions were disposed of, the respondents have conducted auction for the year 2008-2011 but the successful bidders in the said auction have not paid amounts and as such the petitioners were asked to continue and as such the petitioners with a bonafide belief have raised banana crop in the said lands, which is ready to harvest within three months as it is in the flower stage and to the utter shock of the writ petitioners, the third respondent had made a tom tom in the village on 07.08.2009 stating that the auction would be conducted to the above said lands on 11.09.2009 at 10.00 a.m. in the third respondent temple premises. It is also submitted that the said auction of the third respondent temple is arbitrary and illegal and violative of the rules prescribed under the Act and the third respondent has not issued any auction notification and no pamphlets were distributed. It is further stated that the rules provide that if the land is cultivated by any tenant, who does not hold land under tenancy more than Ac.2.50 cents of wet land, the said tenancy must be continued to the same person on the 2/3rd rent of the prevailing market rent and the third respondent without following the said rules had straight away proceeded with the auction. It is also submitted that under Rule 10 of “Lease of Agricultural Land Rules 2003” an auction notification must be issued for auctioning the lands with the particulars of (1) extent of land (2) period of lease and other terms and conditions and rule 11 prescribe that a 10 days clear notice must be there by affixture and distribution of pamphlets and by beating tom tom, but in the instant case the respondents have not followed any such procedure. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached this Court with this writ petition. The orders made in Writ Appeal Nos.1374 & 1375 of 2008, Writ Appeal No.1244 of 2008, Writ Petition No.19200 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No.10864 of 2008 also had been placed before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that the writ petitioners have no locus-standi to file the writ petition and there is no landlord and tenant relationship. It is further stated that it is not correct to state that the petitioners are the cultivating tenants in the lands of the third respondent temple in Sy.No.68/2 of Ryali village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, and that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the said lands for the last 30 years and paying maktha regularly. It is not correct to state that the writ petitioners said to have partitioned the land of total extent of Ac.3-49 cents and enjoying separately by raising banana crop. It is submitted that the petitioners with malafide intention filed three separate petitions under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, to declare them as landless poor under Section 82 of the Endowments Act 30/87. After elaborate enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner as per the powers vested on him under Rule 3 of Lease Rules under G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 rejected the claims of the petitioners herein holding that they are not landless poor and they are not entitled to the benefits of landless poor as defined under the provisions of Section 82 of the Act 30/87 as they were not having approved lease in their favour prior to 6 years of Act 30/87 as well as the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 as per orders dated 23.06.2007. Another ground was that sub-division was not permissible. Against the said orders the petitioners filed three separate appeals before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi-Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, under Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 and the said appeals were also dismissed on merits as per Orders dated 09.04.2008. Thereupon, the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein filed W.P.No.16917 of 2008 and W.P.No.16890 of 2008 respectively, where as the third petitioner filed W.P.No.19200 of 2008 before this Court. The writ petition Nos.16917/2008 and 16890/2008 were disposed of along with another Writ Petition No.16919 of 2008 filed by another person Sri Mallavarapu Aggidevudu and the said writ petitions were disposed of on 18.09.2008 by giving directions that the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein shall be entitled to harvest the crop, if any existing over the land, within one week from the date of order under the supervision of the Manager of the temple and that they are entitled to remove the implements or machinery, if any installed by them with due intimation and under proper receipt from the Manager. The writ petition filed by the third petitioner herein in W.P.No.19200 of 2008 was also disposed of by this Court as per orders dated 05.09.2008 by giving the same directions, but granting 10 days time to harvest the crop. It is pertinent to submit that in all the above writ petitions, this Court upheld the action of the third respondent temple in resuming possession of the land as well as conducting auction for grant of leasehold rights. The third respondent temple obtained possession of its land on 26.07.2008 by following due procedure under Section 84 (1) of the Endowments Act 30/87. Subsequently, the above writ petitions were filed and this Court disposed of the same as detailed above. When the leasehold rights of the lands were put in public auction on 06.08.2008 one Sri Bandela Nageswara Rao became highest bidder. But, the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein field Writ Appeal Nos.1374 and 1375 of 2008 and the third petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1244 of 2008. So, at the request of the said highest bidder Nageswara Rao, the security deposit amount was returned to him. Subsequently, this Court dismissed both the Writ Appeal Nos.1374 and 1375 of 2008 filed by the 1st and 2nd petitioners as per the orders dated 17.02.2009 holding that the 1st and 2nd petitioners filed Writ Appeals without any basis and as such the appeals are devoid of merits etc. and the Writ Appeal No.1244 of 2008 was also dismissed on 29.09.2008. It is further stated that subsequent to the disposal of Writ Appeal Nos.1374/2008, 1375/2008 and 1244/2008, the third respondent by following due procedure obtained possession of the lands of the third respondent, which is a total extent of Ac.3-49 cents, on 11.09.2009 after following due procedure in the presence of the Revenue officials, Police, the Inspector Endowments Department and the elders of the village. So, at present the third respondent alone is in possession of the land. So, the present writ petition itself becomes infructuous. As far as the allegations made in para 8 and 9 are concerned they are already decided and the claims of the writ petitioners herein were already rejected and finally decided upon this Court. Because of the ‘Status Quo’ orders the temple is not able to hold public auction for Ac.3-49 cents in S.No.68/2 of Rayali village. It is further stated that it is not correct to state that the third respondent without following procedure is conducting auction of the leasehold rights etc. The writ petitioners by suppressing the previous orders filed the present writ petition with false allegations. Since the land was already taken possession and as the claims of the writ petitioners were already finally decided, they are not entitled for any equities and reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. In the para-wise remarks placed before this Court on behalf of the first and second respondents, it is stated that it is not correct to state that the petitioners are the cultivating tenants in the lands of the third respondent temple in Sy.No.68/2 of Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, and that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the said lands for the last 30 years and paying maktha regularly. It is not correct to state that the writ petitioners said to have partitioned the land of total extent of Ac.3-49 cents and enjoying separately by raising banana crop. It is submitted that the petitioners with a malafide intention filed three separate petitions under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, to declare them as landless poor under Section 82 of the Endowments Act 30/87. After elaborate enquiry the Assistant Commissioner as per the powers vested on him under Rule 3 of Lease Rules under G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 rejected the claims of the petitioners herein holding that they are not landless poor and they are not entitled to the benefits of landless poor as defined under the provisions of Section 82 of the Act 30/87 as well as the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 as per orders dated 23.06.2007. Against the said orders the petitioners filed three separate appeals before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada, under Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.379 of 2003 and the said appeals were also dismissed on merits as per orders dated 09.04.2008. There upon, the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein filed W.P.No.16917 of 2008 and W.P.No.16890 of 2008 respectively, whereas the 3rd petitioner herein filed W.P.No.19200 of 2008 before this Court. The writ petitions in W.P.No.16917 of 2008 and 16890 of 2008 were disposed of along with another writ petition No.16919 of 2008 filed by one Sri Mallavarapu Aggidevudu on 18.09.2008 by holding that the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein shall be entitled to harvest the crop, if any existing over the land, within one week from the date of order under the supervision of the Manager of the temple and that they are entitled to remove the implements or machinery, if any installed by them, with due intimation and under proper receipt from the Manager. The writ petition No.19200 of 2008 filed by the 3rd petitioner herein was also disposed of by this Court as per orders dated 05.09.2008 by giving the same directions, but granting 10 days time to harvest the crop. It is pertinent to submit that in above writ petitions this Court upheld the action of the third respondent temple in resuming possession of the land as well as conducting auction for grant of leasehold rights. The third respondent temple obtained possession of its land on 26.07.2008 by following due procedure under Section 84 (1) of the Endowments Act 30/87. Subsequently, the above writ petitions were filed and this Court disposed off the writ petitions as stated above. When the leasehold rights of the land were put in public auction on 06.08.2008 one Sri Bandela Nageswara Rao become highest bidder, but the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein filed Writ Appeal No.1244 of 2008. So, at the request of the said highest bidder Nageswara Rao the security deposit amount was returned to him. Subsequently, this Court dismissed both the Writ Appeal Nos.1374 of 2008 & 1375 of 2008 filed by 1st and 2nd petitioners herein respectively as per orders dated 17.02.2009 holding that the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein filed the writ appeals without any basis and as such the appeals are devoid of merits etc. and the Writ Appeal No.1244 of 2008 was also dismissed on 29.09.2008. It is also stated that subsequently after disposal of the writ appeal Nos.1374 of 2008, 1375 of 2008 and 1244 of 2008, the third respondent by following due procedure obtained possession of the lands of the third respondent which is a total extent of Ac.3-49 cents on 11.09.2009 in the presence of the Revenue officials, Police, the Inspector Endowments and the elders of the village. At present, the third respondent alone is in possession of the land. The present writ petition itself becomes infructuous. As far as the allegations made in para 8 and 9 are concerned, they are already decided and the claims of the writ petitioners herein were already rejected and finally decided. Further, it is stated that it is not correct to state that the third respondent without following procedure is conducting auction of the leasehold rights etc. The writ petitioners are suppressing the previous orders, etc, filed the present writ petition with false allegations. Since the land was already taken possession and as the claims of the writ petitioners were already finally decided, they are not entitled for any equities and reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. This is the stand taken in the para-wise remarks of R.1 and R.2. Be that as it may, when the respondents are contemplating to proceed with further auction may be the procedure as contemplated by the provisions of the Act and Rules have to be followed and this Court does hope that the same would be followed by the respondents. In the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit of the third respondent and also the stand taken in the para- wise remarks of R.1 and R.2 and further in the light of the orders made in Writ Appeal Nos.1374 & 1375 of 2008, Writ Appeal No.1244 of 2008, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the present writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed subject to above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J 28th October, 2009 SUR