APHC010413522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 21142/2025 Between: 1. K. ANANADA KUMAR, S/O. APPARAO, H.NO. 1-46, VEDURUPARTHI VILLAGE, KASIMKOTA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. KOTHAPALLI APPARAO, S/O. APPANNA, R/O. VEDURUPARHTI VILLAGE, KASIMKOTA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. KOTHAPALLI.ESWARA RAO, S/O. K.PENTAIAH, H.NO. 1-68, VENDURUPARTHI VILLAGE, KASIMKOTA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. KOTHAPALLI. RAMA MOHAN RAO,, S/O. K.KASULU, VENDURUPARTHI VILLAGE, KASIMKOTA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENTS A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI.VENUGOPALA SWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM KASIMKOTA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ / order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3 to conduct the Auction of temple lands of Sri.Venugopala Swamyvari Devasthanam, Kasimkota Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in Sy.No. 53/A,B an extent of Ac.7.54 agricultural land which is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to conduct the Auction of temple lands of Sri.Venugopala Swamyvari Devasthanam, Kasimkota Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in Sy.No.53/A, B an extent of Ac.7.54 agricultural land and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 & 3 not to conduct the Auction temple lands of Sri.Venugopala Swamyvari Devasthanam, Kasimkota Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in Sy.No.53/A, B an extent of Ac.7.54 agricultural land and to take appropriate action against the respondents 2&3 for not furnishing any information under RTI Act, 2005 U/s. 7(1) pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V.V.S.RAMAKRISHNA.A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.S. Ramakrishna. A, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Temple and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3 2. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the action of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in proposing to conduct the auction of lease hold rights in respect of the lands belonging to the respondent No.3 – Temple. 3. It is contended that the petitioners are cultivating tenants of the respondent No.3 – Temple, since 2015 onwards, for the crop years 2025- 2028, on 03.05.2025, the respondents have conducted fresh auction of the lease hold rights. The petitioners were the highest bidders in the said auction. However, without finalizing the said auction and granting lease in favour of the petitioners, the respondents have proposed for fresh auction on 11.08.2025. The petitioners were further informed telephonically that the auction conducted on 03.05.2025 has been cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no reasons are forthcoming for cancellation of the said lease. 5. Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – Temple on instructions would submit that the reasons for cancellation of auction conducted on 03.05.2025 was on account of the fact that the petitioners have quoted lesser amount than the amount that was bid in the previous year. However, the subsequent auction was conducted on 11.08.2025 fetched higher amounts. The learned Standing Counsel thus contends that in order to have higher lease receipts for the benefit of the Temple, the respondents have conducted auction afresh. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that, the 4 auction that was on 03.05.2025 was subject to approval by the Deputy Commissioner for Endowments Department, since, the same was not approved the respondent No.3 had to conduct fresh auction and the petitioners cannot claim any right in respect of the previous auction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents are not justified in demanding the petitioners to vacate the subject land, having regard to the fact that there is a standing crop in the subject land. In the said connection, learned counsel thus pleads that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the subject land. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3- Temple further submits on instructions that out of the total extent of lease hold land of Ac.7.54 cents, the standing crop i.e., sugarcane is over an extent of Ac.1.97 cents and the remaining extent of land is not presently under cultivation of the petitioners. 8. Considered the rival submissions. Having regard to the submissions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3-Temple to allow the petitioners to harvest the existing sugarcane crop whenever the same is ready for harvesting from the extent of Ac.1.97 cents. Whereas in respect of the remaining extent of land, where there is no standing crop of sugarcane, the petitioners shall forthwith handover the possession of the land to the respondent No.3-Temple. Immediately after harvesting the sugarcane, the petitioners shall deliver the 5 land (Ac.1.97 cents) to the Temple authorities. In the interregnum, the petitioner shall not raise any crops under the guise of the permission granted for harvesting the sugarcane crop. 9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 18.08.2025 MSI 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 21142/2025 Date: 18.08.2025 MSI