IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1404 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/07/2008 in W.P.No: 10576 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V.Seetharamaswamy, S/o.Late V.Lakshmi Narasimham, R/o.Koduru village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna. ..... APPELLANT A N D 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, yderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Government of A.P.Hyderabad. 3. The Dy.Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. The Asst.Commissioner, Endowments, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5. The Manager, Sri Lokeswara and Janardhana, Swamyvari Devasthanam, Koduru Village, Mudenepalli Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: V.T.M.PRASAD, STANDNG COUNSEL The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.A.No.1404 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appellant is writ petitioner. He ﬁled W.P.No.10576 of 2005 to declare the action of the 5 th respondent in issuing Notice No. Nil/05 dated 12-04- 2005 in Form No. I read with Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endowment-IV) Department dated 24-05-2003 as unconstitutional and ultra vires of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and set aside the same. 2. It is stated in the impugned notice that the petitioner had taken lease of the land admeasuring Ac.5-15 cents in Sy.No.335 situate at Koduru Mandal, Mudinepalli Mandal of Krishna District for a period of three years for the lease period 2002-2003 to 2004- 2005 and has been cultivating the same. It is further stated in the impugned notice that petitioner agreed to pay 55 bags of paddy every year towards Sarva Maktha and pay 1/3rd of the Sarva Maktha in case of cultivation under Dalva. The lease period expired by 31-03-2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the abovementioned land after clearing the arrears of maktha to the extent of 161 bags for the above said lease period, failing which appropriate action would be initiated against him under Section 83 of the Act 30/87. Questioning the same, the appellant/writ petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.10576 of 2005. 3. By order dated 21-07-2008 a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for Respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned notice, seeking eviction of the petitioner after clearing the arrears of maktha for the above mentioned lease period, does not refer to either Rule 5 or a notice in Form I with reference to the said G.O. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge erroneously considered the said notice as if it was issued under Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endowment-IV) Department dated 24-05-2003 and adjudicated the matter in favour of the 5th respondent. 6. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The ﬁnding of the learned Single Judge is as follows: “I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that as the petitioner’s tenure of lease has, admittedly expired, he has no right to be in possession of the property in question. All that respondent No.5 has done is to issue the impugned notice to hand over possession consequent on expiry of the lease period and clear the arrears. I do not, therefore, see any illegality in respondent No.5 issuing such a notice. The petitioner, who squatted on the property, after expiry of the lease period, is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in the absence of any semblance of right, whatsoever, to hold possession after expiry of the lease period.” 7. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that the learned Judge has considered the legality and validity of the impugned notice and refused to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as admittedly issuance of such notice cannot be found fault with and it cannot be said that the notice is contrary to law. 8. It is stated that the appellant has paid Rs.27,210/- towards part of the lease amount. A submission has been made before the learned Single Judge that there is a standing crop in the land and the appellant/writ petitioner may be permitted to harvest the same before the land is handed over to the 5th Respondent and that request had been considered permitting the 5th respondent to harvest the standing crop in the presence of the appellant/writ petitioner and adjust the sale proceeds of the crop towards the arrears payable to the 5th respondent-institution. 9. We do not know under what circumstances such a request has been made by the appellant himself seeking permission to harvest the existing crop before handing over possession of the land. It appears that the said order is on consensus at the instance of the appellant. If that be so, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order, more so, when the impugned order does not suﬀer from any illegality or infirmity. 10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 6th November 2008 Lrkm ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {JA}