HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.A. NO.879 OF 2006 Between: Aluri Seshagiri Rao ..... Appellant AND The Executive Officer, Sri Veeranjaneya Swamiwari Temple, Suryapalem, Gollapudi Post, Krishna District and 3 others. .....Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G.Vasantha Rayadu Counsel for Respondents : The Government Pleader for Endowments. Dated 23.08.2006 Per Sri G.S.Singhvi, CJ This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 23.1.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the auction conducted by Executive Officer, Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Vari Temple, Surayapalem, Gollapudi Post, Krishna District (respondent No.1). Chakravarthula Ramakrishnama Charyulu (respondent No.3) is said to have leased out Ac.4.70 cents of land comprised in Revenue Survey No.38 situated in Suryapalem village, which belongs to respondent No.1 to the appellant herein some time in the year 1970. The appellant and respondent No.3 are said to have been involved in several litigations including O.S.No.1567 of 1985 filed in the Court of District Munsif, Vijayawada, which ended in compromise some time in 1988. On 20th June, 2005, respondent No.1 conducted a public auction for grant of leasehold rights over the land possessed by the appellant. The appellant questioned the auction proceedings mainly on the ground that prior notice had not been given to the members of public. He also pleaded that respondent No.1 cannot evict him without following the procedure under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it was averred that the land in question was given to Thiru Vengala Charyulu as paditaram in view of the services rendered by him as Archaka of the temple. After his death, respondent No.3 succeeded as Archaka of the temple and continued in possession of the land. According to respondent No.1, the appellant did not have any concern with the land in respect of which lease rights were auctioned on 20th June, 2005. Respondent No.1 further averred that respondent No.2 had given highest bid, but he failed to fulfill the conditions of auction. Therefore, the proceedings of auction were cancelled and fresh auction was conducted on 25.7.2005. In the second auction, one Praveen Kumar gave highest bid, which was approved by Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada on 29.7.2005 and possession of the land was delivered to the highest bidder on 1.8.2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the petitioner does not have any right over the land in question; that the compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 is not binding on respondent No.1 and that the proceedings of re-auction held on 25.7.2005 have not been questioned by the writ petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for refusing to interfere with the auction conducted by respondent No.1 are legally correct and the order under challenge does not call for interference under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. An additional reason for our disinclination to entertain the appellant’s grievance is that Praveen Kumar, who was declared as successful bidder in the re- auction held on 25.7.2005 and who was put in possession of the disputed land has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition and the writ appeal, and without issuing notice and giving opportunity of hearing to Praveen Kumar, no order adversely affecting the auction held by respondent No.1 can be passed. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Dt.23.8.2006 msv/ars