THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.28405 & 25525 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER: 1. W.P. No.25525 of 2024 has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the Temple authorities in not implementing the proceedings issued by Respondent No.3 vide K.Dis.No.D1/COE- 14024(34)/17/2024 dated 09.09.2024 is illegal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to grant licence rights for carrying on business in Sri Agastheswara Swamy Temple for a period of three years and to allot Shop Nos.9/507-B1 and 9/507-B2 on rental basis. 2. W.P. No.28405 of 2024 has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in not conducting a public auction for Shop Nos.9/507-B1 and 9/507-B2 situated at Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town and Municipality, YSR Kadapa District, is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners further seek a direction to conduct a fresh public auction and permit them to participate in the same. 3. In W.P. No.28405 of 2024, the petitioners submits that they were leaseholders of Shop Nos.9/507-B1 and 9/507-B2 pursuant to NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 2 an auction conducted by Respondent No.5 Temple for the period 2021–2024. Their lease was valid up to 30.06.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.28405 of 2024 submitted that the petitioners have continued in possession of the shops even after expiry of the lease period, as the respondents did not conduct a fresh public auction. It is stated that the petitioners have been regularly paying rent without default. It is further contended that the Temple usually conducts public auctions three months prior to expiry of the lease period, but no such auction or notice was issued in the present case. Therefore, until a fresh auction is conducted in accordance with the Rules, 2003, the petitioners’ possession should not be disturbed. 5. In W.P. No.25525 of 2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner became the successful bidder in the auction conducted by Respondent No.5 on 19.04.2024 for the subject shops and deposited the required amounts as per the auction conditions. However, despite completion of the auction, possession of the shops has not been handed over to the petitioner, NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 3 though the respondents retained the deposited amounts. Hence, the writ petition was filed. 6. Respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit in W.P. No.25525 of 2024 stating that the subject shops were earlier leased to K. Srinivasa Rao through public auction dated 10.06.2021 for the period from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2024. It is alleged that K. Srinivasa Rao sub-leased the shops to Ramireddy Rama Chandra Reddy without permission from the competent authority. Even after expiry of the lease period, the unauthorized occupant did not vacate the premises. Accordingly, notices dated 11.11.2024 and 14.11.2024 under Section 83 of the Act were issued directing the occupant to vacate the premises, failing which action would be taken. However, the occupant continued in possession, and Respondent No.5 sought police protection for eviction. Though the petitioner in W.P. No.25525 of 2024 was the highest bidder in the auction dated 19.04.2024, possession could not be delivered due to the continued occupation of the premises. 7. It is further stated that Respondent No.5 addressed letters dated 23.11.2024 and 28.11.2024 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, II NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 4 Town Police Station, Proddatur, seeking police protection for eviction of the unauthorized occupants. Dates were fixed on 24.11.2024 and 01.12.2024 for the eviction process. However, police protection was not provided, and therefore the Temple could not proceed further and is awaiting further instructions from higher authorities. 8. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Temple conducted a public auction on 19.04.2024 after issuing public notice and admitted that the petitioner in W.P. No.25525 of 2024 became the successful bidder for the subject shops. Thereafter, Respondent No.5 forwarded the details to Respondent No.2 for approval, and approval was granted through proceedings dated 09.09.2024. Although the Temple intended to hand over possession to the successful bidders, possession could not be delivered due to the filing of the writ petition by K. Srinivasa Rao. 9. Heard Sri V. Nitesh and Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, and the learned Standing Counsel for NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 5 Sri Agastheswara Swamy Temple. The material available on record has also been perused. 10. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.5–Temple conducted a public auction in respect of the subject shops bearing Nos.9/507- B1 and 9/507-B2 and that the lease period granted to the earlier lessee expired on 30.06.2024. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner in W.P.No.25525 of 2024 emerged as the successful bidder in the subsequent public auction conducted on 19.04.2024 and deposited all requisite amounts in accordance with the auction conditions. The proceedings approving the auction were also issued by the competent authority vide proceedings dated 09.09.2024. Therefore, the right of the petitioner in W.P.No.25525 of 2024 to be inducted into possession pursuant to the approved auction cannot be disputed. 11. The material placed before this Court further discloses that the earlier lessee, contrary to the terms and conditions of auction and in violation of the Rules, 2003, sub-let the premises to a third party without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Such sub-letting is clearly impermissible under the auction NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 6 conditions and does not create any independent or enforceable right in favour of the sub-lessee. 12. Admittedly, the lease period of the original lessee came to an end on 30.06.2024. Once the lease period expired, neither the original lessee nor the alleged sub-lessee could claim any legal right to continue in possession of the subject premises. Mere continuation in occupation after expiry of the lease period, even coupled with payment of rent, does not confer any vested or statutory right to remain in possession, particularly in respect of temple properties. 13. This Court also finds substance in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioners in W.P.No.28405 of 2024 lack locus standi to challenge the action of the respondents. The writ petition has not been filed by the original lessee, but by a person claiming as sub-lessee under an unauthorized sub-lease agreement said to have been entered by successful bidder. Such persons cannot seek for equitable relief from this Court to perpetuate their unauthorized occupation of temple property. NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 7 14. At the same time, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner in W.P.No.25525 of 2024 participated in a valid public auction conducted by the Temple authorities and emerged as the highest bidder, complied with all conditions of auction, and deposited the requisite amounts nearly one and a half years ago. Despite the same, possession of the subject premises has not been handed over to the petitioner. Hence, the successful bidder cannot be made to suffer on account of the inaction of the authorities or due to the unauthorized occupation of third parties. 15. Once the auction was concluded and approved by the competent authority, Respondent No.5 is under a legal obligation to ensure delivery of vacant possession to the successful bidder in accordance with the terms of auction and the Rules, 2003. Therefore, the inability of the Temple authorities to evict unauthorized occupants cannot defeat the lawful rights accrued in favour of the successful bidder pursuant to a duly approved public auction, unless it is cancelled or otherwise held by the competent authority. NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 8 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the continued occupation of the subject premises by unauthorized persons is wholly illegal and contrary to the statutory Rules, 2003, which are governing temple properties. Hence, unauthorized occupation cannot be permitted to override the rights of a lawful auction purchaser whose bid has already been confirmed by the competent authority. 17. Therefore, in view of the above analysis, this Court holds that the petitioner in W.P.No.25525 of 2024 is entitled to delivery of possession of the subject shops forthwith. Further, the possession of subject shops could not be handed over to the petitioners for the reasons which are not attributable to the petitioner. Hence, Respondent No.5 is directed to either grant the petitioner the full lease period of three years from the date of handing over possession or suitably extend the lease period after obtaining necessary approval from the Commissioner, so as to protect the petitioner from prejudice was caused by the delay. 18. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 9 19. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:07.05.2026 SP NV,J W.P.No. 28405 & 25525 of 2024 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.28405 & 25525 OF 2024 Date:07.05.2026 W SP