IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12519 of 2009 Between: Challa Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy, R/o. Challavaripalem, Via., Nallapadu Post, Opp: Telephone Exchange, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. .. PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 Sri Seetha Ramanjaneyaswamy Devastanam, Nallapadu, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. 5 Challa Raghava Reddy, S/o. Sambasiva Reddy, Butlammathalli Temple Back Side, Challavaripalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENS 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more partiuclarly one in the anture of WRit of madnamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in allotting the land in question in favour of the 5th respondetn herein by conducting the public auction for lease out the temple land to an extent of Ac. 5.45 in Sy.No. 580 of Nallapadu, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur district on 28-5-2009, without dispossessing the petitioner from the lands in question while the term of lease of the petitioner is in force till 06-08-2009 and contrary to G.O.Ms.NO. 379, Revenue, Endowments dt. 11-03-2003, "A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003", is illegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequenty to direct the respondents to cancel the auction dated 28-5-2009 and direct the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law and pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MUMMANENI.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER:- This Court ordered notice before admission on 26-6-2009. 2. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit. Reply affidavit also had been filed. 3. Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing writ petitioner, the learned G.P. for Endowments representing R.1, R.2, R.3 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned stnding Counsel representing R.4. It is stated that R.5 also had been served. 4. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in allotting the land in question in favour of the 5th respondent herein by conducting the public auction for lease out the temple land to an extent of Ac.5.45 in Sy.No.580 of Nallapadu, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District on 28-5-2009, without dispossessing the petitioner from the lands in question while the term of lease of the petitioner is in force till 6-8-2009 and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue, Endowments, dt.11-3-2003 – A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003, is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to cancel the auction dt.28- 5-2009 and direct the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law and pass such other suitable orders. 5. Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that only due to political reasons, the petitioner is being deprived of his continuance. The Counsel also made an attempt to demonstrate how the signature episode cannot be the correct episode. 6. Per contra, the learned G.P. for Endowments would maintain that after the expiry of the period, the petitioner has no enforceable legal right so as to file the present writ petition and hence no relief can be granted. 7. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned standing Counsel representing R.4 had taken this Court through the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit, the writ petition to be dismissed. 8. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenant of the 4th respondent temple to an extent of Ac.5.45 cents in Sy.No.580 of Nallapadu, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District for the past 1 ½ decade by paying the lease amount without any default, while it being so in the year 2008, the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to conduct the public auction in respect of the lands in question, as per G.O.Ms.No.379, dt.11-3-2003 and accordingly the petitioner became the highest bidder for the year 2008-2009. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, issued proceedings on 16-8-2008, while approving auction and directed the Executive Officer and get the lease deed registered after obtaining the sufficient security from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is continuing as tenant in the said land in question. While it being so, before completion of petitioner’s lease period, the petitioner orally requested the Executive Officer to extend his lease on payment of 10% of excess payment on the earlier auction conducted on 6-8-2008. Accordingly, the Executive Officer informed the petitioner that he is sending proposals to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments forgetting necessary orders. Taking into consideration of the undertaking given by the Executive Officer, the petitioner started agricultural operations in the said land in question by flouring the entire land and also the said land is ready to raise the seedbed for the purpose of raising cotton crop and now at the present, the entire land is for suing cotton crop and that the said land is under his possession and enjoyment as on today. The respondent authorities did not take any steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. While it being so, without evicting the petitioner from the land in question, the 4th respondent is not entitled to issue public auction and the said public auction in question is also not published in any newspapers and there is no vide publicity and without notice to the petitioner and without having any knowledge in and around the locality, the 4th respondent high-handedly conducted the alleged auction in question on 28-5-2009 with a view to do favour to the 5th r. Hence, the entire action of the 4th respondent in conducting the alleged auction in favour of the 5th respondent is illegal, void and opposed to Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that at the instance of the ruling party leaders, the 3rd and 4th respondents high-handedly conducting the auction in question on 28- 5-2009 with a view to do favour to the 5th respondent, who belongs to Ruling Party. On the other hand, the Ruling Party leaders are having grudge against the petitioner since he is not supporting their party during the recent election. Hence, at the instance of the local leaders, the 3rd and 4th respondents high-handedly in a secret manner conducting the auction in question to do favour to the 5th respondent is not fair play and liable to be set aside in the interest of Justice. Further specific stand had been taken that the petitioner is entitled to continue till 16-8-2009 and the petitioner had been in possession of the land in question. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent Temple several of the allegations had been denied. It is stated that the 4th respondent Temple was classified under Section 6(c) of Endowments Act 30/87 and the same is under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. The said respondent Temple is the owner of agricultural dryland in an extent of Ac.5.45 cents in Sy.No.580 of Nallapadu, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. This respondent Temple conducted public auction of leasehold rights for the said land on 6-8-2008 for a period of one year i.e., 2008-2009 ending on 31-3-2009 i.e., the end of agricultural season. The petitioner participated in the said public auction after being satisfied with the auction condition and put his signature in token of his acceptance. The petitioner became highest bidder on a maktha of Rs.12,500/- for the entire land and the said lease proposals were approved by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur in his Rc.No.A5/9084/2008, dt.16-8-2008. It is also stated that accordingly the petitioner cultivated the land. Further it is stated that as per the auction condition No.1, the said public auction of leasehold rights is subject to the approval of the competent authority. As the lease was conducted and approved for only one year, the petitioner cannot claim any rights over the said land beyond the end of agricultural season ending on 31-3-2009 and after that this respondent is entitled to conduct public auction of leasehold rights. It is also stated that as per auction condition No.24, it was stipulated that by 31st March of every year whether the land is wet or dry, the respondent Temple has got possessory right over the land without the consent or relinquishment of the highest bidder. As such the petitioner has got no right to continue in the land as the agricultural lease period was already completed after the crop year 2008-09. The petitioner cannot contend that he had got rights up to August, 2009. Further it is stated that the auction of any lease pertains to agricultural land will be conducted only for the agricultural year ending with 31st March or 30th April. As such the petitioner is only entitled to cultivate the crop in the dry land belongs to the Temple within the above mentioned time of 31st March. Even otherwise the petitioner himself admitted regarding the said condition mentioned supra to the effect that the Temple had got right of possession by 31st March, 2009. The petitioner cultivated the land and harvested the crop in the land according to the lease granted to him for the year 2008-09. Further it is stated that as the approved lease was expired, this respondent proposed to conduct public auction of lease hold rights again for ensuing 3 years i.e., 2009- 2010 to 2011-2012 on 28-5-2009 and accordingly conducted public auction of lease hold rights for 3 years. The petitioner also attended the said can and put his signature on the auction conditions but did not participate in the auction proceedings. One Challa Raghava Reddy became highest bidder for a sum of Rs.16,500/- for the entire land per year and the said lease was approved for a period of 3 years by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur in his D.Dis.No.A5/5312/09, dt.4-6-2009. In pursuance of the said lease, the highest bidder/present lessee entered into the land and started agricultural operations and possession was given to him on 28-5-2009 i.e., the date of auction. Further several averments also had been made in para 8 of the counter affidavit as well. 10. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner again the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reiterated and further it is stated that the action of the 4th respondent in conducting the auction of the lease hold rights of the land in question was in arbitrary and in a secret manner on 28-5-2009 and this was done with a view to favour 5th respondent. Several other averments also had been made in the reply affidavit at paras 2 and 3. 11. There appears to be some controversy relating to the fact that the signature episode as pleaded in the counter affidavit is a true episode. This Court is not inclined to go into this aspect in detail for the reason that this would not seriously alter the situation. Specific stand had been taken in the counter affidavit that the lease period came to an end and the petitioner has no legal right to claim the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition. When the petitioner has no enforceable legal right, it is needless to say that the relief prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted. In the light of the same, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 18th August, 2009 smr