YERRAKULA VENKATESWARLU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

4. SRI KASI VISWESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, GOLLAPUDI VILLAGE, ITS BAPATIA DISTRICT REP. BY PARCHURU MANDAL, 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 to issue a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in declaring the action of the 4TH respondent in proposing to conduct the public auction of lease hold rights of Ac. 2.00 cents belonging to it situated at Sy.No.43/1 of Goliapudi Viiiage, Parchuru Mandal, Bapatla District as per tom tom as bad, illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner subject land and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land measuring Ac. 2.00 cents belonging to it situated at Sy.No.43/1 of Gollapudi Village, Parchuru Mandal, Bapatla District belonging to 4 respondent and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 dismiss the Writ Petition while vacating orders dated 06.08.2024 in WP No. 17171 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 leave to the petitioner to file reply affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC For Endowments

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in proposing to conduct the public auction of lease hold rights of Ac.2.00 cents belonging to it situated at Sy.No.43/1 of Gollapudi Village, Farchuru Mandal, Bapatla District, as per tom tom as bad, illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land and pass such other…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.

3. The claim of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the lease hold rights over land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.43/1 of Gollapudi Village, Parchuru Mandal, Bapatla District pursuant to the lease granted by the 4th respondent-temple in favour of his wife as a lease holder for a period of three years. Subsisting the lease, the wife of the petitioner/lease holder died and petitioner herein being the husband continued the lease period as a legal heir and paid the rest of the lease amount and by virtue of that he was in possession of the property.

4. Learned counsel would submit that in view of the Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003, (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules, 2003’) the petitioner is entitled for a notice directing the lessee to handover the possession of the property after completion of the lease period. He further submit that without issuing any notice, the respondents are proceeding to conduct auction for subject lease hold rights, which is contrary to the Rule 5(1) the Rules, 2003 and hence, the auction notice is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submit that the petitioner herein is not the lessee and he is only legal heir. They further submit that as per the Rule 9(f) of the Rules, 2003, the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the lease hold rights only for the subsisting period only.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner neither obtained prior approval from the Executive Authority to continue him as a legal heir of the lessee in the lease period nor intimated the death of the lessee. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to hold possession of the property after expiry of the lease period in favour of the lessee. Therefore the petitioner herein is not entitled any notice as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 2003.

7. They further submit that even though there is no existing lease period, the petitioner continued for extra one more year and challenged the present auction notice without there being any right whatsoever and hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition as the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned auction notice.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even after the completion of lease period, the petitioner had been continued as lessee for one more year. Having continued in possession for one more year, the nature of continuation of possession of the petitioner either under extended lessee or as an encroacher. Therefore the respondents may initiate appropriate proceedings either to remove the petitioner as an encroacher or subsisting lessee, is found valid and sustainable.

9. Therefore, the 4th respondent authorities are empowered to initiate proceedings for dispossession of the petitioner either as an encroacher or initiate proceedings under Rule 9(h) of the Rules, 2003.

10. In view of the reasons stated above and pursuant to the Rules as mentioned, the respondents herein are directed to proceed further to dispossess the petitioner by initiating appropriate proceedings either under Section 83 (4) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or under Rule 9(h) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003.

11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Date: 29.01.2026 M K K _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 237 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION.No.17171 of 2024 Date: 29.01.2026 M K K