APHC010717372014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13010/2014 Between: 1. M.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY S/O NAGI REDDY, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.B.KOTHAKOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS-II DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SRI CHENNAKESAVA AND GROUP TEMPLES, B.KOTHAKOTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in increasing the rate of interest from 12% to 18% on the 2/3rd Balance BID Amount from the petitioner for confirmation of sale of land in public auction held on 29.09.2000 belongs to the 4th Respondent Temple, vide impugned 2 Lr.Rc.No.N1/6927/2012, Dated 22.05.2013 of the 2nd respondent which is communicated to the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, improper, violative Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the earlier Proceedings of the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.43450/Endts.II/A1/2008, dated 28.11.2008, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to receive the balance 2/3rd bid amount from the petitioner for confirmation of sale of land in public auction held on 29.09.2000 belongs to the 4th Respondent Temple with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.14.10.2000 as per the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.43450/Endts.II/A1/2008, dated 28.11.2008 and to registering the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 16309 OF 2014 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 2nd respondent to receive the balance 2/3rd bid amount from the petitioner for confirmation of sale of land in public auction held on 29.09.2000 belongs to the 4th Respondent Temple with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.14.10.2000 as per the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.43450/Endts.II/A1/2008, dated 28.11.2008 by duly directing the respondents 3 and 4 to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 2. V T M PRASAD 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13010/2014 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in increasing the rate of interest from 12% to 18% on the 2/3rd balance BID Amount from the petitioner for confirmation of sale of land in public auction held on 29.09.2000 belongs to the 4th Respondent Temple, vide impugned Lr.Rc.No.N1/6927/2012, Dated 22.05.2013 of the 2nd respondent which is communicated to the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, improper, violative Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the earlier Proceedings of the 1st respondent vide Memo No.43450/Endts.II/A1/2008, dated 28.11.2008, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to receive the balance 2/3rd bid amount from the petitioner for confirmation of sale of land in public auction held on 29.09.2000 belongs to the 4th Respondent Temple with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.14.10.2000 as per the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.43450/Endts.II/A1/2008, dated 28.11.2008 and to registering the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the public auction conducted on 29.09.2000 in respect of the 1/4th share of the land i.e., Ac.6.20 cents in Sy.No.1847/1. The petitioner and three others became successful bidders in respect of entire land for an amount of Rs.1,33,000/- per acre. As per the terms of the auction notice, the petitioner being the successful bidder deposited 1/3rd of the amount i.e., 4 Rs.2,72,118/- and requested some more time to pay the remaining amount i.e., Rs.5,52,482/- at the time of registration as per the terms of the auction. Now, the respondents increased the interest on the balance 2/3rd amount from 12% p.a. to 18% p.a. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated even after lapse of 7 ½ years none of the successful bidders neither paid the balance amount nor requested to cancel the auction and for return of the amount. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued another auction notification on 13.03.2008, then immediately the other three bidders approached respondent No.2 and filed a representation expressing their readiness for payment of 2/3rd amount with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 14.10.2000 at the rate as fixed on auction. The claim of the other three successful bidders was rejected. The said rejection order was assailed before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an interim order directing the respondent authority to receive 2/3rd of the amount without insisting for interest. Subsequently, three successful bidders came forward to pay the 2/3rd amount without 12% interest. Then, the commissioner has submitted a report to the Government requesting to reconsider the earlier decision and consider the representations of the highest bidders and accord permission to register the land by receiving 2/3rd balance bid amount with 18% interest p.a. from the date of public auction, till date no orders are passed. But as far as the petitioner is concerned who is one of the successful bidders, he neither appeared before respondent No.2 nor submitted any representation either 5 expressing his readiness for payment of remaining amount or request for cancellation of same. Further, if the said sale is confirmed it will not be beneficial to the institution. It would have been benefit for the institution if the entire sale proceeds are paid within time stipulated as per the auction condition, but as of now the prevailing market value of the said property is worth crores, as such it will not be in the interest of the temple. In view of the same, respondents took a decision to forfeit the amount already deposited and further opined that after lapse of 1½ decade without paying money by the petitioner on time, now requesting transfer of property at that rate, which is detriment to the interest of the respondents. As such, the petitioner request was not considered. 5. He further submits that now respondent No.4-Temple is not intended to alienate the subject property pursuant to the auction sale notice dated 29.09.2000. He further submits that since the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the auction, the petitioner is not entitled to sought for any relief at less equity rights contrary to the terms of the auction sale notice. 6. Heard all the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the subject auction was conducted for sale of agricultural land by way of public auction on 29.09.2000. The said auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and three others on 14.10.2000. The said confirmation was issued pursuant to the deposit of 1/3rd of the auction amount as per the terms of the auction sale notice. As per the terms of the sale notice, the remaining amount shall be deposited within a period of two(2) months 6 after the confirmation of sale dated 14.10.2000. It appears that the petitioner violated the said condition and not come forward to deposit the remaining amount to get register the sale deed in his favour. It is further observed from the counter-affidavit of respondent No.4 that other three successful bidders/auction purchasers approached the respondent authorities and requested for permission to deposit remaining 2/3rd amount along with interest @ 18% from the date of auction till the date of registration. It appears that the petitioner did not approached even after issuance of fresh tender notification. He filed Writ Petition in the year 2014 challenging the permission granted in favour of the other persons who approached in the year 2008 for getting registration in their favour. As contended by the learned standing counsel for respondent No.4, now respondent No.4 specifically denied the right of the petitioner since, the petitioner did not approach respondent for more than 1½ decade, the authority decided it cannot be alienated after twenty five years at the rate fixed in the year 2000. Further the said auction would be detrimental to the respondent No.4-temple is valid and sustainable for the reason since the petitioner violated the terms of the auction. It is settled law once the petitioner participated according to the terms of the sale, the petitioner should be adhered to the said terms and conditions of the auction. But in the instant case, the petitioner violated the terms of the auction and kept quiet for more than 1½ decade and challenging the proceedings of the respondent in the year 2014 pleading to enlarge the benefit which was conferred to the others and requested to allow the petitioner by paying the interest @ 12% is contrary 7 to the terms of the auction notice. It is settled law that the person who do not comply the conditions of the auction notice, is not entitled to enforce the terms having violated the same. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition. 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:13.02.2026 BSP/TPS 8 58 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13010/2014 Date:13.02.2026 BSP/TPS