IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 17967 of 1999 Between: Sri Ramachandra and Gopala Krishna Mutt, Adilabad rep. by its Mahant ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The District Collector & Magistrate, Adilabad District, Adilabad and others .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GIRI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : ORDER: The property of a Mutt was arbitrarily taken over for the purpose of establishing a Rythu Bazar. Curiously, the justification of respondents, in their counter affidavit, is that both the Endowment Department, which controls the Mutt, and the Marketing Department, under which the Rythu Bazar falls, are departments of Government and, therefore, no lease deed need be entered into with, and no rent need be paid to, the Mutt. 2. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments, who appeared before this Court, fairly stated that this misconception on the part of the authorities does not have statutory sanction and that the respondents ought to have obtained permission of the Mutt before establishing a Rythu Bazar over lands which belonged to it. He would further submit that the Rythu Bazar was established in the year 1999, that rent has now been provisionally determined by the Deputy Commissioner for Endowments as Rs.20,000/- per month, that arrears of rent of Rs.11,00,000/- has already been paid to the Mutt and that it would be suffice if this Court were to dispose of the writ petition directing the Commissioner of Marketing, Hyderabad, to mutually agree with the Mutt on a reasonable rent to be paid for the lands belonging to the Mutt. 3. Sri A.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, expresses apprehension that the District Collector and the Commissioner of Marketing, who are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, may further drag on the matter without paying the balance of arrears of rent and the monthly rent, periodically. 4. Ends of justice would be met if respondents 1 and 2 enter into an agreement with the petitioner-Mutt on the monthly rent to be paid within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till a mutual agreement is arrived at between the parties concerned, it is but appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 to pay the rent of Rs.20,000/- each month, as recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, on or before the 10th of every succeeding month. Needless to state that any further amounts payable to the petitioner towards arrears of rent shall also be as mutually arrived at between the parties concerned within the aforesaid period. 5. Subject to the observations aforementioned, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 1st December 2008 CVRK