APHC010540452008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28481/2008 Between: 1. MUDDA GURAVAIAH,, S/O. SRI KOTAIAH, AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHANDRAJUPALEM, BELLAMKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT 3 OTHERS, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BOGGULAKUNTA, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMI TEMPLE, KOTHAPETA, GUNTUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMI TEMPLE, KOTHAPETA, GUNTUR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI NAGESWARA & GOWTHAMESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, BELLAMKONDA VILLAGE AND MANAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent Memo. in Rc.No.NN1/31064/2008, Dt. 26-9-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind and contrary to the Record and set aside the same and further direct the REspondents to register Ac.3-05 cents in Sy.No.10 of Machayyapalem 2 Village, Bellamkonda Mandal, guntur District in favour of the petiioenr by receiving the balance 2/3rd sale consideration amount and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP 37329 OF 2008 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings memo in Rc.No.NNI/31064/2008 dated 26-9-2008 passed by the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WVMP 179 OF 2009 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 vacate the order dated 30-12-2008 made in WPMP No. 37329/2008 in WP No. 28481/2008 and to dismiss the Writ Petitiona nd pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments 3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28481/2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent Memo in Rc.No.NN1/31064/2008 dated 26.09.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, non application of mind and contrary to the Record and set aside the same and further direct the respondents to register Ac.3.05 cents in Sy.No.10 of Machayyapalem Village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Guntur District in favour of the petitioner by receiving the balance 2/3rd sale consideration amount and pass such other order.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the auction sale notice, the petitioner became a successful bidder in the year 1999 and he deposited 1/3rd of the bid amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner became successful bidder, the petitioner was entitled for the relief as claim in the writ petition. The petitioner is ready to deposit the rest of the amount. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that after the deposit of 1/3rd amount pursuant to the auction sale, but for one reason or other the petitioner did not deposit the 4 remaining 2/3rd amount, within a period of 15 days of the auction as per the terms of auction. She further submits that once the petitioner violated the terms of auction, he is not entitled for the claim. She further submits that having violated the terms of the auction, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the year 2008. Since, the petitioner did not come forward, the entire auction was cancelled and the same was informed to the petitioner by way of proceedings dated 26.09.2008. She further submits that the petitioner being the successful bidder, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the auction subject property till today, without paying any lease amount. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any return of amount and on the other hand the respondent temple is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law to recover the amount payable towards lease or rental amount. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that it is an admitted fact that the auction of sale was conducted by the respondent in respect of the property of respondent No.4/ temple in the year 1999. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had participated in the said auction and he has deposited 1/3rd bid amount after having declared him as successful bidder of the said auction. As per the tender notice, the person who 5 became successful bidder has to deposit the balance amount within a period of 15 days. 6. It is further observed from the entire record that there is no proof or evidence was filed to show that the petitioner has come forward to deposit 2/3rd amount within a period of 15 days or submitted any representation seeking extension of time for such deposit till 2008. But in the year 2008, he made a representation expressing his readiness for depositing the remaining amount. By that time, the authorities concerned took a decision and informed the petitioner that the entire auction proceedings were cancelled due to violation of the tender conditions. As contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was issued number of notices for depositing remaining amount, but for one reason or other the petitioner did not respond for the notices issued by the respondents. It is a settled law that until and unless a successful bidder has complied with the terms of auction and deposited the rest of the amount, the tender or auction stands incomplete. In the case on hand admittedly, the petitioner violated the auction conditions. Being violated the auction conditions, the petitioner cannot claim himself as a successful bidder. The respondent shall proceed in the event of default of terms and conditions of sale notice. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is further observed that the entire auction was cancelled by the competent authority and the same was 6 informed to the petitioner on 26.09.2008. It is settled law that the auction authority is empowered to cancel the entire auction at any time even after declaration of the successful bidder. 7. In view of the reasons cited above and settled provisions of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed further for vacation of the petitioner from the subject property by initiating appropriate proceedings. However, the petitioner is also entitled to make representation to the respondents to return the deposited amount. After such submission, the respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner, after calculating the means of profits as established as per the Lease Rights, 2003 in G.O.Ms.No.379. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 23.01.2026 AAG G 7 250 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28481/2008 23.01.2026 AAG G