THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16217 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein was granted lease in respect of agricultural lands belonging to the 3rd respondent-temple for a period of three years from 2005-06 to 2007-08. It is not in dispute that the he was the successful bidder in the public auction conducted on 1.07.2005 and, accordingly, lease was granted in his favour in accordance with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 issued under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.03.2008. Admittedly, the period of lease expired on 30.06.2008. However, the petitioner states that he made a representation on 21.05.2005 requesting the 1st respondent to extend the lease for a further period of 3 years on 10% enhancement on the existing lease amount, since he suffered loss due to the damage caused to the crops on account of laying of gas pipe lines by the Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited in the lands leased out to him. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has issued a notice dated 18.07.2008 proposing to conduct auction on 28.07.2008 for grant of fresh leasehold rights. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that since his request for renewal of lease is pending before the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent ought not to have issued the auction notice for grant of fresh lease. At the outset, it is to be noted that as per the Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.03.2003, all leases shall be by public auction and the duration of the lease shall not exceed 3 years. There is no provision under the Rules for extension/renewal of the lease on any ground whatsoever. May be the petitioner’s request for renewal is pending, however since such renewal is impermissible under statutory rules the impugned notice cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal merely on the ground that his representation is pending. If the petitioner so chooses, it is always open to him to participate in the fresh auction proposed under the impugned notice. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on today there is standing crop on the land and therefore the petitioner cannot be dispossessed. It is always open to the writ petitioner to make such a request before the 3rd respondent, in which event, it is for the 3rd respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 25.07.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16217 of 2008 Between: Padamata Rambabu S/o late Veeraiah, R/o Madiki Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., rep by the Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Janardhana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, represented by Manager, Madiki Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the auction Notification dated 18-7-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, against the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of Act 30/1987 and rules made there under, and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to cultivate the lands an extent of Ac. 7-00 cents in R.S. No.32 of Madiki Village, Alamuru mandal, East Godavari District on enhancement of 10% on the lease amount and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. B.V.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: