THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15670 of 2010 Date: 05.07.2010 Between: Ballam Narayanamma ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15670 OF 2010 O R D E R : The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3.60 cents of land situated in survey No.16 at Mangalagiri village, Guntur District belonging to the 2nd respondent-Temple. It is stated that her husband was initially granted the lease and after his demise the petitioner has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. Alleging that the 2nd respondent-Temple conducted auction on 29.05.2010 for grant of lease hold rights of the land in question for the period from 2010-2013 without intimation to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner was a landless poor person and the land in question was the only source of livelihood of her family, the impugned action of the respondents, is arbitrary and illegal. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent under instructions stated that the petitioner’s claim that she was the landless poor person was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur vide proceedings dated 05.05.2010 and thereafter, the possession was taken from the petitioner on 09.05.2010 and public auction was held on 29.05.2010 for grant of lease hold rights of the land in question. It is further stated that the petitioner’s son by name Rayapati Krishna Rao also participated in the said auction. However, one Kandru Rambabu being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and the lease was granted in his favour. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 05.05.2010 as well as the auction proceedings dated 29.05.2010 have been placed before this Court by the learned standing counsel. The said material shows that the allegations made by the petitioner are unfounded. In the circumstances, the mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ Date: 05.07.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd