IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.14361 of 2009 Between: Kandikattu Chinna Munaiah, S/o. Ramanaiah, R/o. Jonnawada Village, Bachireddipalem Mandal, Sree Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowment, SPSR, Nellore District. 3 The Executive Officer, Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshitayee Temple, Jonnawada Village, Sree Potti Sriramulu Nellore 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proposed Public Auction Schedule to be held on 20-7-2009 in Sl.No.9, 10, 11 for the lands in Sy.No.444, 446 and 23 situated in Penuballi, Jonnawada Village, Buchireddipalem, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, through proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein dated 20-7-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987 and also contrary to the Rules 5 and 7 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Lease of Agriculture Lands Rules, 2003 and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NARASIMHULU Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. V.T.M. PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the auction notification dated 01.07.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent- Executive Officer of Sri Mallikarjunaswamy Kamakshitayee Devasthanam, Jonnawada Village, Buchireddipalem Mandal of Sree Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, proposing to conduct public auction on 20.07.2009, for auctioning the leasehold rights of the lands in an extent of Ac.4.41 cents in Sy.No.23, 0.28 cents in Sy.No.444 and Ac.1.78 cents in Sy.No.446 of Penuballi, Jonnawada Village, Sree Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, along with other lands belonging to the 3rd respondent Devasthanam, for a period of three years i.e. from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. The petitioner claims that he has been cultivating the lands in an extent of Ac.4.41 cents in Sy.No.23, 0.28 cents in Sy.No.444 and Ac.1.78 cents in Sy.No.446 of Penuballi, Jonnawada Village, Sree Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, belonging to the 3rd respondent Devasthanam, since 2006, as a lessee, and paying maktha regularly. It is his grievance that he is a landless poor person and has no other source of livelihood except cultivation of the aforesaid lands, and that, without any notice and without affording an opportunity to him to exercise his option for continuing in possession of the said lands as a cultivating tenant, as required under law, the impugned auction notification was issued. He relies on a certificate purported to have been issued by the Village Revenue officer, Jonnawada Village, certifying that he does not own any land in his name. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Though the petitioner contends that he has been granted lease hold rights in respect of the land in question for a period of three years from 2006-09, the same is disputed by the 3rd respondent-Temple, and it is contended that no lease was extended in favour of the petitioner after 2006. The material papers, namely receipts, filed by the petitioner for the period between 2006-09, indicate that he has been paying maktha in lumpsum to the 3rd respondent-Temple. In the absence of any material filed by the petitioner showing that the 3rd respondent-Temple had granted him the leasehold rights in respect of the land in question beyond 2006 in which year, the lease granted to the petitioner earlier, is said to have been expired, he cannot be said to be a cultivating tenant of the land in question. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the 3rd respondent-Temple in issuing the impugned notification, for auctioning the leasehold rights of the land in question. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 17th July, 2009 IBL