IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13187 of 2004 Between: D.Venkateswara Rao, s/o Venkatappaiah, r/o Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, Sri Parvathi Rama Lingeswara Swamy Temple, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 2 The Board of Trustees, Sri Parvathi Rama Lingeswara Swamy Temple, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. G.UDAY BHASKAR FOR MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.3: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in conducting open auction for granting leasehold rights of the land admeasuring Acs.3.77 cents in R.S.No.161/3 of Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District without determining the rights of the petitioner, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). When the vacate stay petition has come up before this Court on 09.07.2008, as there was no representation for the writ petitioner, the writ petition was directed to be posted today under the caption “for dismissal”. Today, Sri G.Uday Bhaskar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request for adjournment. Since the case is already under ‘dismissal’ caption, I have not felt inclined to adjourn the case. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and gone through the record. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that without determining his rights as lessee under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, in particular Section 82(2) of the Act, the respondents are seeking to proceed to auction the leasehold rights of the above-mentioned land. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is stated that on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 82(2) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada issued notice, dated 21.12.2004 to the petitioner to produce the documents such as lease approval orders, annual income certificate, property certificate etc., but the petitioner has not attended the enquiry and not produced the documents and that he made a request to grant 15 days time through a letter which was accepted and enquiry was adjourned to 19.01.2005. It is further stated that as the petitioner made another request for adjournment, the enquiry was posted finally to 15.02.2005 and that he failed to produce any documentary evidence on that day and hence, the petitioner’s claim that he is a landless poor person was rejected by proceedings, 16.02.2005. It is further stated that against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal No.26 of 2005 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Kakinada and the said appeal was dismissed on 20.12.2005. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting these averments. In view of the same, the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are seeking to auction the leasehold rights without determining his rights does not any longer survive. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WVMP.No.961 of 2006 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th JULY, 2008. kvni