HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No.26153 of 2001 Dated 3-12-2010 Between: A.Dinanath and others. …Petitioners. And: The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No.26153 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioners who are five in number and who are third parties have filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings in Rc.No.D2/24974/2001 dated 17-8-2001 of the Commissioner of Endowments Department and communicated by the Assistant Commissioner of his office granting permission to the 4th respondent to raise a fencing around the land belonging to the 3rd respondent temple on lease by enhancing the rent. Petitioners have raised various contentions in the writ petition questioning the validity of the above impugned proceedings. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that a reading of the impugned proceedings dated 17-8-2001 would suggest that there is already a pre-existing lease of the 3rd respondent land in favour of the 4th respondent and that the impugned proceedings is only for grant of permission for raising fencing and that in fact there was no earlier proceedings sanctioning lease in favour of 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners also drew my attention to various provisions of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (For short ‘the Act’) and also the relevant rules framed under the said enactment to show that the lease itself has not been granted by a competent authority and the impugned proceedings are also violative of the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent who is the lessee in question has pointed out that the lease has been granted in his favour after compliance with all the provisions of the Act. He also brought to the notice of this court that even subsequently the lease has been renewed in favour of the 4th respondent and that the last renewal is dated 10-4-2008 granted by the Government itself in G.O.Ms.No.588 Revenue (Endowments-II) Department dated 10-4-2008 and that lease period is for 25 years on the rents mentioned therein. It may be noted that under the provisions of the Act, it is always open for the competent authorities to cancel the lease on certain grounds mentioned therein. In the present writ petition, nothing concrete is mentioned about the said ground. It may also be noted that what is questioned in the writ petition is the order dated 17-8-2001 of the Commissioner i.e., 1st respondent permitting raising of the fencing around the land leased out to the 4th respondent and enhancing the rent. It should be noted here that the writ petition is of the year 2001 and the material papers filed by the 4th respondent would show that the lease in question was renewed from time to time and last renewal was on 10-4- 2008. Hence during the past 9 or 10 years, the lease in question has been renewed on several occasions. The pleadings in the writ petition do not show on what grounds this Court can go into the validity of the said renewal and continuation of the lease. The provisions of the Act would show that grant of lease of temple land or properties can be questioned by 3rd parties also who are interested in the temple or endowment in question. Hence, it is always open for the petitioners to raise their objections to the lease in question granted in favour of the 4th respondent and which has been renewed from time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated across the Bar that if petitioners are given a chance to pursue their remedies before the appropriate authorities under the Act, they would ventilate their grievance before the concerned authorities about the 3rd respondent’s property i.e., the land in question. In the above circumstances, having regard to the fact that the lease of the 3rd respondent’s land in favour of the 4th respondent has been renewed from time to time and as the renewal being of 10-4-2008, it shall be open for the petitioners to approach the Commissioner or the other competent authorities raising their objections to the lease in question and the said authorities shall as and when petitioners files such objections, dispose of the same taking a decision in one way or the other in accordance with the provisions of the Act. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 3-12-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No.26153 of 2001 Dated 3-12-2010