IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11912 of 2008 Between: Mallepogula Singaraiah S/o. Chinna Buddanna R/o. Munagala Village, Nandayal Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Ramaeshwara Swamy Temple, Rep. by Single Trustee and Manager, Munagala Village, Nandayal Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Endowment Department, Nandayal, Kurnool District. 3 Soma Chinna Venkata Subbaiah S/o. C. Subbarayudu R/o. STD Booth, Opp: Kalikamma Temple, Nandayal Town, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the auction for conducting auction of Sri Rameshwara Swamy Temple's land for an extent of Ac. 6-66 guntas in Sy.No.173, of Munagala Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and also contrary to the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 and consequently declare the auction notice for conducting auction of Sri Rameshwara Swamy Temple's land for an extent of Ac. 6-66 guntas in Sy.No.173, of Munagala Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District as null and void. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 11912 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.6.66 cents of land situated in Sy.No.173 of Munagala village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District belonging to Sri Rameswara Swami Dewastanam. According to the petitioner, a lease was granted in his favour in the year 1999 by the third respondent herein, who was a trustee of the temple for a period of 15 years valid up to 10-10-2014. It is also claimed by the petitioner that he has been paying the annual lease regularly as ﬁxed by the third respondent and there is no default on his part at any point of time. However, the impugned auction notice was issued in the month of June, 2008 by the ﬁrst respondent proposing to conduct public auction on 05-06-2008 for grant of the leasehold rights for a period of 3 years. Aggrieved by the said action of the ﬁrs respondent, present writ petition is filed. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the ﬁrst respondent, it is stated that the third respondent has nothing to do with the temple. While stating that the 3rd respondent has never been appointed as trustee of the temple, it is contended that the lease said to have been granted in favour of the petitioner is illegal and it does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to continue in possession of the land in question. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pointing out that the possession of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents, contended that in the circumstances, it is mandatory for the respondents to issue a notice under Rule 5 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11-03-2003. I do not ﬁnd any substance in the above contention of the petitioner. The notice under Rule 5 is necessary only with regard to leases of agricultural land belonging to the endowments subsisting as on the date of the enforcement of the Act 30 of 1987. Even according to the petitioner, the lease in his favour was granted in the year 1999. Hence, Section 82 is not attracted and consequently notice under Rule 5 is not required. It is also relevant to note that as per Rule 8 of the Rules, no lease shall be granted for a period exceeding 3 years. Therefore, on that ground also, the alleged lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 15 years being contrary to the Statutory Rule is illegal. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held to have acquired any legal right enforceable by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 29-08-2008 KLP