1 APHC010383952010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11577/2010& 17335/2010 WP No.11577/2010: Between: Gudivada Dharma Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Government Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS AR) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER : As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2 2. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.11577 of 2010 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 3. The facts of the case are that the 1st respondent has issued auction notice dated 9.5.2007 proposing to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights for a period of 3 years from 2007-20110 to an extent of Ac 24.83 cents including the lands which are under possession of the petitions. Immediately, the petitioners approached the 3rd respondent with a request not to conduct any auction as their application is pending consideration before the authority. At that stage, the 3rd respondent surprisingly served the copy of the order dated 19.01.2005 to the 1st petitioner on 19.5.2007 rejecting his application on the ground that he is not a tenant basing on the alleged report of the Founder Family Member of the 4th respondent temple. Accordingly, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing WP No.10805/2007 questioning the auction notice dated 9.55.2007 issued by the 4th respondent and in that writ petition, this High Court has granted interim direction. It is stated that the petitioners are cultivating the lands which are under their possession as usual and paying makta to the 4th respondent temple regularly without any default and the petitioners have paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the month of December 2009 towards part payment in E.P.No.296/2009 in O.S No.28/1999. Further, the petitioners are regularly paying land revenue to the Government and obtaining receipts. 3 While the things stood thus, the 4th respondent temple issued a notification dated 3.5.2010 proposing to conduct auction for grant of lease hold rights for an extent of Ac 28.00 cents including the lands which are under the possession of the petitioners for a period of 3 years from May 2010 to April 2013 without issuing any notice to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners made representations. During pendency of the said representations, the 4th respondent has fixed the schedule to conduct auction on 19.5.2010, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition. 4. This Court vide order dated 19.05.2010 in WPMP No.14675 of 2010 in WP No.11577 of 2010 has granted interim direction as under: “……such is the situation, there shall be a direction to the petitioners to submit a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments claiming the status of landless poor within a period of one week and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments shall dispose of the representation within two weeks thereafter. Till the disposal of the representation, auction, if any, held shall not be confirmed. The arrears, if any, by the petitioners as on this date shall be paid within four weeks from today.” 5. In pursuance of the same, the petitioners submitted application on 26.5.2010 to the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner stating that they were landless poor and they are not owning any lands of their own except the lands in their possession and enjoyment of the temple lands of an extent of Ac 1.94 cents and Ac 2.50 cents respectively and requesting him to conduct enquiry and issue certificate under the provisions of Section 82(2) r/w Rules in G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.3.2003. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Gudur with a request to issue certificate that they are landless poor but so far no action has been taken. Without issuing any notice to the 4 petitioners, the 3rd respondent passed orders on 11.6.2010 which is impugned in WPNo.17335 of 2010. 6. The WP No.17335 of 2010 has been filed declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in D.Dis No.A1/5212/2010,dated 111.6.2010 which was communicated to the petitioners by the 4th respondent vide his covering letter dated 3.7.2010 as illegal and arbitrary. 7. This Court vide order dated 20.07.2010 in WPMP No. 21841 of 2010 in WP No.17335 of 2010, while issuing Rule nisi, has granted Status quo obtaining as on that day with regard to the property in question shall be maintained until further orders. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent in WP No.17335 of 2010. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, stated that, when the interim order given in WP MP No 13562/07 on 23-05-2007 stood vacated, the petitioners were told that they were automatically dispossessed. It is stated that the petitioners addressed a letter to the Inspector Endowments, with a copy to the trustee on 26-06-2010 mentioning that they could not participate in the auction conducted due to communication gap, and ill health. This letter was addressed on 26th June 2010, three days after they attacked the authorized tenant in the Temple land. It was stated that the auction was conducted without their knowledge. If it were to be so, how they referred to the notification of auction in WP11577 of 2010, filed well before the auction was 5 conducted on 19-05-2010, has to be explained by them. The very fact that they wanted to participate in the auction to take on lease the said land shows that they agreed indirectly that they were dispossessed and the land was in the possession of the Temple from whom they wanted to take it on lease. It is further stated that the petitioners did not mention that the application of one of the petitioners Sri G.Dharma Rao was rejected and Sri G.Ramarao had applied and did not attend the inquiry fixed by the Assistant commissioner, They are harping on one issue that they are landless poor without mentioning that the Assistant commissioner did not give them the necessary certificates. However, the interim order of the High court in W.P M.P No 14675/2010 dated 19-05-2010 was followed and the respondents are waited without confirming the auction held on 19-05-2005 till the Asst. Commissioner had disposed the applications by rejecting the same for reasons recorded in his proceedings on 11-06-2010. The High court directed them in the same order to clear all arrears, if any, within four weeks from 19-05-2010 and they did not pay any amount to clear arrears. It is also stated that they did not receive the certificates from the Tahasiladar. Further, it is stated that it is seen from the proceedings of the Asst. Commissioner that the application of Sri Dharmaraowas rejected on the ground that his claim was earlier rejected by the then Assistant commissioner vide proceedings as stated above and the application of Sri G.Ramarao was rejected on the ground that he was not a cultivating tenant as per the case law.It is stated that the petitioners did not receive the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.06.2010 and 6 they are propagating that the temple management confirmed the auction held on 19.05.2010, this respondent has sent a special messenger with the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner to prove that the respondents have confirmed auction proceedings only after their applications were rejected by the Assistant commissioner. Further, the correct address of the petitioner is Gandram Village, Post Nagavaram,viaKautavaram, Gudurmandalam, Krishna Ditrict. It is not correct to say that the proceedings were sent on behalf of or at the instance of the Assistant Commissioner. It is further stated that the Asst. commissioner passed order in collusion with the 4th respondent is a baseless, false and wild allegation made with an ulterior motive. Therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Heard Sri G Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 10. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, submits that, taking advantage of the ex parte impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent temple authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in their possession, even before producing certificates by the petitioners from revenue officials. If the petitioners are evicted from the lands which are in their possession, the petitioners will be deprived of their rights to get the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.3.2003. He submits that the 4th respondent without evicting the petitioners from the respective lands in their occupation 7 after following procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.03.2003 and the prescribed under Section 82, 83 and 84 of the Amended Act 30 of 1987 that too without communicating the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 11. Per contra, learned Government Pleader opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 12. Perused the material on record. 13. Admittedly, earlier, the petitioners have filed WP No.11577/2010 seeking to declare the auction notice dated 3.5.2010 issued by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, in view of the interim order of this Court in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has submitted fresh representation and the same was considered and rejected by the 3rd respondent. Questioning the same, the petitioners have preferred another writ petition i.e., WP No.17335 of 2010. 14. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, the 2nd petitioner committed default in payment of lease amount for 1980, 1981 in spite of demand notices. As such his predecessor late Sri S. Chandra Sekhar Sastry to the then Managing Trustee, filed ATC No.35 of 1982 in the Court of Tenancy, Special Officer at Machilipatnam. Later, the said ATC was disposed of and the eviction orders were passed against the respondents therein vide order dated 02.05.1986 aggrievedby the same, the respondents therein, who are petitioners herein have preferred ATA No.29/1986 before the District 8 Court, Machilipatnam and obtained stay of eviction pending disposal of the appeal. Thereafter, the matter was remanded back to the Tenancy Special Officer while imposing a condition that all of them should deposit Rs.5000/- each and give immovable property worth Rs5000/- as security. Against the same, the petitioners filed WP No.2012/1987 before this Court and obtained stay. 15. This Court further observed that, two suits i.e., OS No.154/2010 and O.S No.150/2010 have been filed in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam against the petitioners herein for recovery of amounts Rs.41,325/- and Rs.47,110/- up to sarva crop 2009 to which further lease amount of about Rs.3500/- and Rs.3000 for dalva 2010 has to be added respectively. In view of the above, it clearly establishes that the petitioners are chronic defaulters and habitutated not to pay as per schedule and also the due amounts. In fact the management waited for the whole schedule period of lease of three years to lapse to see whether the petitioners would comply with the conditions laid down before dispossessing them and notified the auction only in May 2010 after a period of three years as per the auction schedule. It is also observed that, in view of the interim orders passed in WP MP No.14675 of 2010 in WP No.11577 of 2010, the respondents followed the procedure and also waited without confirming the auction held on 19.5.2005 till the Assistant commissioner had disposed the applications by rejecting the same for the reasons recorded in his proceedings dated 11.6.2010. . 9 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, as the grievance of the petitioner in WP No.11577/2010 has been redressed by the 3rd respondent in view of the interim order of this Court passed in WPMP No.14675 of 2010 in WP No.11577 of 2010, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the same is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 17. Accordingly, the WP No.11577/2010 is dismissed as infructuous. 18. Insofar as WP No.17335 of 2010 is concerned, this Court is of the view that the respondents have followed the procedure and also waited without confirming the auction held on 19.5.2005 till the Assistant Commissioner had disposed of the applications. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the WP No.17335 of 2010 is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. __________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 24 -01-2025 Gvl 10 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO W.P. Nos.11577 and 17335 of 2010 Date : 24 .01.2025 Gvl