IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10555 of 2009 Between: 1 Velama Padmavathi W/o. Appa Rao R/o. Muppala Village, Evuri Mandal, Guntur District. 2 Sure Koteswara Rao S/o. Peda Pitchaiah R/o. Muppala Village, Evuri Mandal, Guntur District. 3 Kommineni Nageswara Rao S/o. Subbaiah R/o. Muppala Village, Evuri Mandal, Guntur District. 4 Vutla Narasimha Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu R/o. Muppala Village, Evuri Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowment) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowment Boggulakunta, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy Vari Devasthanam, Muppala, Rep. by its Manager, Muppala Village, Evuri Mandal, Guntur 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing auction notification dt.10.5.2009 of the lands in Sy.Nos.345 and 310 of Muppala Village, Epuru Mandal, Guntur District for lease even though the lease period of the petitioners is still subsisting is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the third respondent- Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy Vari Devasthanam, in issuing auction notification dated 10.5.2009 for lease of the lands in Sy.Nos.345 and 310 of Muppala Village, Epuru Mandal, Guntur District, even though their lease period is subsisting. It is the case of the petitioners that the third respondent- temple conducted auction for leasehold rights of the said lands in the year 2004 and again in 2007 in which they were declared as highest bidders. The lease period was from 2007-2010. After they were declared as leaseholders of the lands, they have paid lease amount for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. When they approached the third respondent for payment of lease amount for the year 2009-2010, the third respondent-temple refused to take the same on the ground that it will take the same after completing the elections. The main grievance of the petitioners is that even before the expiry of the said lease period, the third respondent issued notification on 27.05.2009 for auctioning the leasehold rights of the lands for the year 2009-2012. Hence the writ petition. When the matter came up for admission on 28.05.2009, this Court while ordering notice directed the respondents not to confirm the auction. Thereafter, a vacate stay petition is filed by the third respondent-temple. The case of the third respondent is that initially an auction was conducted in the year 2004 and thereafter no public auction was conducted and that lease of the petitioners was expired in the year 2007 itself. Later on, the lease amounts were paid by the petitioners for the years 2007- 2008 and 2008-2009 even without any approved lease in their favour. Now the third respondent-temple proposed to conduct fresh auction for a period of three years i.e., 2009-2012, and accordingly issued notification and conducted public auction on 27.05.2009. It is further stated that the husband of the first petitioner and petitioners 2 to 4 also participated in the present auction, in which petitioners 3 and 4 became highest bidders for their previous leased lands. The petitioners are trying to continue in the lands on meager maktha that was paid by them previously. Now the said lands fetched to Rs.50,000/-, Rs.54,000/-, Rs.70,000/- and Rs.54,500/- as against the previous payment of Rs.16,000/-, Rs.13,500/- Rs.18,000/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively. In view of the said situation, to appreciate the contents whether there is any lease conducted for the period 2007-2010 declaring the petitioners as highest bidders, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the relevant record. Today, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-temple produced the relevant record. A perusal of the record discloses that the lease of the petitioners was expired in the year 2007 itself. Thereafter, for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 the petitioners were allowed to continue under the same lease without there being any auction. Since there is no subsisting lease in favour of the petitioners, the respondents have conducted auction for 2009-2012 and in the said auction petitioners 3 and 4 also participated and have become highest bidders. The petitioners, admittedly, do not have any lease in their favour for the periods claimed by them i.e., 2007-2010, and the lease was expired long back. The auction has to be conducted once in every three years. Taking into consideration the said fact, the respondents have conducted auction as per the procedure contemplated under Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. In the present auction the lease amount offered is three times more than the amount offered by the petitioners. Another interesting factor is that the petitioners also participated in the said auction and they themselves offered highest amounts. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have issued the notification illegally. In view of the same, I see no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 22nd June, 2007 Js.