IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11708 of 2009 Between: Challa Manikyam S/o. Pothiraju, Hindu R/o. Pandalaparru (V) Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Eluru West Godavari District. 3 Sri Anjaneyaswami Devastham D. Muppavaram (V) Rep. by its Executive Officer , D. Muppavaram (V) Nidadavole Mandal, W.G. District. 4 Nakka Manganna S/o. Jogarao Nidadavole Mandal, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENS 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 writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to confirm the auction held on 5-5-09 in respect of land in Sy.No. 51 measuring an extent of Ac 5.78 cents of 3rd Devasthanam situated at D. Muppavaram Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary null and void and for a consequential order to direct the respondents 1 to 2 to set aside the auction dt. 5-5-09 by permitting the petitioner to continue as cultivating tenant by enhancing 10% on the existing lease amount as per the circular issued by the Government and to pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER;- This Court ordered notice before admission and issued rule nisi on 11-8-2009. 2. Counter affidavit of 3rd respondent had been filed. 3. Heard Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, the learned Counsel representing writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for Endowments representing R.1 and R.2 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned standing Counsel representing R.3. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to confirm the auction held on 5- 5-2009 in respect of land in Sy.No.51 measuring an extent of Ac.5.78 cents of 3rd respondent Devastanam situated at D.Muppavaram village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and for a consequential order to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to set aside the auction dt.5-5-2009 by permitting the petitioner to continue as cultivating tenant by enhancing 10% on the existing lease amount as per the circular issued by the Government and to pass any appropriate relief. 5. The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner would maintain that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant of the land in question and the petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held in the year 2006-2007. The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner also would maintain that inspite of the antecedents of the 4th respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are bent upon proceeding with the confirmation of the auction held on 5-5-2009 and the 4th respondent is taking advantage of the same and that this is impermissible. 6. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. for Endowments and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned standing Counsel representing R.3 had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would further maintain that in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition to be dismissed. 7. The petitioner had stated that he is the cultivating tenant of the land measuring Ac.5.78 cents in Sy.No.51 of D.Muppavaram village, belonging to the 3rd respondent Devasthanam. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held in the year 2006-2007 for a period of three years. The bid amount was fixed at Rs.11,000/- per acre. The petitioner has been paying the lease amount as per the date fixed in the said auction, without any default nor delay. Till date, the petitioner had been in possession of the said property. Further it is stated that while so, the 3rd respondent published auction notice in their village stating that the public auction would be taken place on 5-5-2009 in respect of the schedule land and accordingly the interested persons can participate in the said auction. The petitioner further stated that in the auction held on 5-5-2009, the 4th respondent was found to be the highest bidder at Rs.18,000/- per acre, as he could not complete with the exorbitant amount for which the auction was held though he participated in the said auction. As per the conditions of the auction, the person who is found to be the highest bidder in the auction, has to deposit one year least amount soon after completion of the auction, besides the security deposit of Rs.6,000/-. As stated above, the auction was held on 5-5-2009 and the 4th respondent even though is found to be highest bidder, he did not deposit the one year lease amount till date, as per the conditions of the auction. As per the conditions of the auction, the highest bidder has to deposit the lease amount without any further delay. The 4th respondent though violated the conditions of the auction in depositing the one year lease amount as per the conditions of the auction, the respondents 2 and 3 are proposing to confirm the auction in his favour for the reason that the wife of the 4th respondent is a Mandal President belonging to the Ruling Party. It is not out of place to submit here that the very same 4th respondent was the defaulter in connection with a lease amount of the land belonging to Devastanam. The 4th respondent is in habit of committing defaults. Inspite of the antecedents of the 4th respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 are bent upon to proceed with the confirming the auction held on 5-5-2009. It is also stated that they have been cultivating the lands for more than 60 years and they brought the land under cultivation by investing huge amounts. The 4th respondent in collusion with the 3rd respondent by using his political clout at high places participated in the auction, without any bona fide intention to take the land on lease that is the reason he bid the au8ction at Rs.18,000/- knowing pretty well it is not worth while for the auction. The 2nd respondent has to necessarily cancel the auction and to conduct fresh auction since the 4th respondent violated the auction condition i.e., depositing of one year lease amount. Instead of doing so, the 2nd respondent at the influence exhorted from the high officials of the ruling party is bent upon to confirm the auction in favour of the 4th respondent. Taking advantage that he is the highest bidder in the auction held on 5-5-2009, the 4th respondent is trying to take possession of the land from the petitioner by using force without complying with the conditions of the auction. It is pertinent to state here that the 1st respondent published a news item in Telugu Daily newspapers i.e., Sakshi and Eanadu of E.G. District Edition, wherein the Government issued a circular directing the authorities concerned to allow the existing tenant to continue as tenant by enhancing 10% of the existing lease amount in respect of small farmers. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner is a white cardholder. In fact, the petitioner along with other 4 of his brothers are cultivating one acre each for the last several decades by paying the maktha fixed by the Government from time to time without any default or delay. Whereas, the 4th respondent i.e., bidder is a defaulter in whose favour the auction was held. So far no confirmation was made as the 4th respondent has committed default in depositing the one year lease amount till date. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, which was sworn to by the Manager of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the 3 years lease period of the petitioner from 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, he was given lease approval orders to that effect by the Deputy Commissioner in D.Dis.No.B5/10592/2006 dt.30-6-2006 and that his lease amount was Rs.63,600/- per year for Ac.5.78 in Sy.No.51 of Pandaparru village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District and that his lease period as stated earlier expired on his harvesting the dalva crop i.e., the 2nd crop in April, 2009. Further it is stated that possession of the land in question was taken on 15-4-2009 and fresh auction pamphlet was issued on 20-4-2009 stating that auction will be held on 5-5-2009. Auction was held on that day and 30 persons attended it and signed on the auction conditions document. The name is at serial No.11. Nine persons paid deposit of Rs.6,000/- and participated in the auction. The petitioner also paid the deposit amount of Rs.6,000/- and his name is to be found at Sl.No. in the list of the 9 depositors. One Nakka Mangamma became the highest bidder at Rs.1,07,000/- per year for the extent of Ac.5.78 and possession has been given to him on 5-5-2009 on his payment of 1/3rd of the one year lease amount which comes to Rs.30,000/- apart from his deposit amount. He also deposited his mother’s pattadar pass book and title deed book as security containing Ac.2.00 in S.No.100/1 (Ac.1.04) and 100/2 (Ac.0.96) of Pandlaparru village, Nidadavole Mandal. It is also stated that the lease approved orders for the three years period of 2009-10 to 2011-12 was given to him by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments in D.Dis.No.A4/4394/2009 ADM, dt.21-5-2009. It is wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that he is a landless poor person. He has not applied to the Assistant Commissioner to declare him as landless poor. The statement of the Deputy Commissioner published in the newspapers referred to in the affidavit is not applicable to him and more over that news item appeared on 7-6-2009 whereas auction was held on 5-5-2009. 9. Thus in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit even if the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to be carefully examined and even on the verification of the material papers placed before this Court along with the Writ Petition, this Court is satisfied that the relief prayed for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted and accordingly the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 17th August, 2009 smr