IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.21145 OF 2009 Between: Kotha Chalapathi Rao, S/o.Sambaiah and others .... PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.21145 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 30.09.2009 and directed status quo to be maintained. 2. W.V.MP.No.3622 of 2009 was filed by respondent No.3 to vacate the interim order. At this stage a request had been made for the final disposal of the writ petition. 3. Heard Sir N. Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad representing respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. The writ petition is filed for a writ mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not deciding the claim of petitioners as landless poor persons, inspite of their due applications and the auction of leasehold rights conducted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 29.09.2009 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 10 in respect of lands of Ac.2-01 cents, Ac.1-80 cents and Ac.3-10 cents respectively covered by D. No.140 of China Nandipadu Revenue Village as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments.I), dated 11.03.2003 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to continue the petitioners in possession of their said respective tenancy holding lands and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is the case of the writ petitioners that respondent No.3 is a Charitable Institution within the meaning of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987(hereinafter in short referred to as, ‘the Act’, for the purpose of convenience) and the said institution owns an extent of Ac.10-51 cents in D. No.140 of China Nandipadu Village. The forefathers of the petitioners were inducted into possession of different extents of lands, out of aforesaid Ac.10-51 cents, as tenants by the predecessors in office of respondent No.3. Time to time, rent was enhanced and the petitioners being successors in tenancy continued to hold and cultivate the said lands as tenants. On 18.07.1983, the petitioners were declared as highest bidders, when auction was conducted for leasehold rights for an extent of Ac.2-01 cents, Ac.1-80 cents and Ac.3-10 cents respectively covered by D. No.140 of China Nandipadu Revenue Village. The petitioners are regularly paying rents without any default. 6. It is further stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 raised cotton crop and petitioner No.3 raised chilly crop and certain further averments had also been made relating to the ploughing of the lands and making them ready for the purpose of raising crops. 7. It is further stated that by the advent of Section 82 of the Act the petitioners became entitled to purchase or to continue as tenants as they are landless poor persons. The petitioners claimed as such and requested respondent No.2 to receive their applications and decide their status as landless poor persons as contemplated under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments lease of agricultural lands Rules, 2003. Respondent No.2 is under legal obligation to issue a notice to the petitioners under Rule 5 of the said rules and decide their status. Since respondent No.2 did not discharge such legal obligation, the petitioners’ submitted representations dated 18.08.2009 and 20.08.2009. Respondent No.2 received the same, but did not initiate any enquiry. The petitioners and their joint family members are landless poor persons, eking out their livelihood only from the aforesaid lands. 8. It is also stated that on 29.09.2009 respondent No.3 followed by respondent Nos.4 to 10 came to their lands and insisted them to vacate therefrom by saying that auction for the leasehold rights was conducted on 29.09.2009 and respondent Nos.5 to 10 emerged to be highest bidders. Petitioners asked for a copy of such auction proceedings. They refused to furnish or show the same. Petitioners also stated that no auction was conducted. No auction notification was issued. No approval was obtained from the competent authority. They are not evicted from the lands. Their claims as landless poor persons were not adjudicated. No publication was made about the alleged auction. It is respondent No.3, who set up respondent Nos.5 to 10, who are his close followers and the local MLA, to somehow grab the lands belonging to institution. Even if any auction under the colour of conducting auction is shown, the same is null, void and without jurisdiction. Then they rushed over to respondent No.2 and requested to undertake enquiry on their representations and restrain respondent No.3 from his highhanded acts. Respondent No.2 did not respond to their request. In fact respondent No.3 is now being represented by a new Managing Trustee, who was appointed about a week ago. He is politically inimical to them and belonged to ruling MLA’s group in the local politics. He is abusing power through his political higherups by mounting pressure on respondent No.2 to somehow see that their tenancy rights were deprived. The respondents should sell the land in their favour or permit them to continue as tenants at concessional rate of rent. Until such exercise is completed, the respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to evict them from the lands. Even eviction should be undertaken by following due procedure established under the said act. 9. It is further stated that the predecessors in office of respondent No.3 issued a certificate dated 15.09.2009, thereby certifying their possession and cultivation as tenants. Regular rent receipts are also filed herewith for kind consideration of this court. Respondent No.1 issued memo No.22776/Endts.I(2)/2009-1, dated 05.06.2009 and following the same, the Commissioner of Endowments issued a Memo, dated 05.06.2009 to the effect that the existing lessees should be continued on enhancement of 10% lease amount. As per said order also they are entitled to continue as tenants. 10. Thus, it is stated that the auction of the respondents being not justified, the reliefs prayed in the writ petition to be granted. 11. In the counter affidavit filed along with W.V.MP.No.3622 of 2009, it is stated that the petitioners are the encroachers of the lands in question with no right whatsoever and also further stated that the auction was held for the subject lands in Sy.No.140 admeasuring Ac.10-51 on 29.09.2009 after following the due procedure prescribed by law after publishing auction pamphlet on 18.09.2009. Twelve persons participated in the auction by depositing Rs.2000/- while 32 persons in all attended the auction held on 29.09.2009 for three years lease hold rights of 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. All the Ac.10-51 cents is situated in Sy.No.140 of Chinandipadu Village, Parchur Mandal. Six persons namely Parvathaneni Subba Rao (Ac.1-50 cents, at Maktha of Rs.23,300/- per year), Kakani Sree Rama Murthy (Ac.1-60 cents at Maktha of Rs.26,500/- per year), Kotha Appaiayh Chowdary (Ac.1-80 at Rs.36,500/- per year), Nakkala Veeraiah (Ac.1-70 at Rs.27,000/- per year), Bonigala Chitti Babu (Ac.1-90 at Rs.26,000/- per year), and Kotha Venkateshwarlu (Ac.2-01 at Rs.37,000/- per year) were the successful bidders. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Prakasham District had granted lease approval orders in D.Dis.No.A6/6035/09, dated 30.09.2009. 12. It is also stated that it is absolutely false to state that there is standing crop of cotton in the lands as alleged in Paragraph No.4 of the writ affidavit. There is absolutely no standing crop on the lands admeasuring Ac.6-91 cents (petitioner No.1 - Ac.2-01 cents; petitioner No.2 - Ac.1-80 cents and petitioner No.3 – Ac.3-10 cents) as alleged in Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit. This extent of Ac.6-91 is part of Ac.10- 51 cents put to auction on 29.09.2009. Further the highest bidder had been put in possession of their respective extents immediately after the auction on 29.09.2009 and all of them had paid their entire respective Maktha amounts for one year on 30.09.2009. They are now in the effective possession and enjoyment of the subject land. 13. Further, specific stand had been taken that so far none of the petitioners had been declared as landless poor persons and there is no recorded evidence that the petitioners were declared as highest bidders on 18.07.1983. 14. The approval of the lease hold rights of the lands in public auction D.Dis.No.A6/6035/09, dated 30.09.2009 of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, had been placed before this Court. 15. No doubt, it is stated that certain representations in this regard are said to be pending. However, as can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners are not having any enforceable legal right. When that being so, the relief prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, the same stands to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 26, 2009 MD