( 1 ) THIS common order shall dispose of both the writ petitions. There are five writ petitioners in W. P. No. l9169 of 2003 and there is one writ petitioner in W. P. No. 19920 of 2003. The petitioners claim to be cultivating tenants in respect of agricultural dry land admeasuring more than Ac. 9. 00s. The land belongs to sri Chennakesava Swamy Temple, gargeyapuram Village in Kurnool District. The petitioner in the other writ petition claims to be a cultivating tenant in respect of agricultural dry land belonging to sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple of Gudikal village of Kurnool District. The land admeasuring Ac. 10. 00s. All the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the temple authorities and the Assistant commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool in seeking to evict the petitioners from the lands allegedly in their possession without considering their claims for the purchase of the land under sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 (hereafter called the Act for brevity) as illegal and contrary to provisions of the Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in the first writ petition claim that they have been cultivating tenants for the last 30 years. The petitioner in the other writ petition claims to have been the successful bidder in the auction conducted for giving leasehold rights for agricultural lands. It appears temple- authorities issued auction notice again to lease out the land. The petitioners claim to be landless poor persons and therefore contend that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to determine the status of the petitioners under Rule 3 of the Andhra pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Lease of agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (hereafter called the Rules ). They also contend that they are willing to pay 75% of the market value for the respondents in accordance with Section 82 (2) of the Act. When the auction is about to be conducted they filed the representations from this Court. At the time of admission in both the matters, while directing the learned Standing counsel for the Temple to get instructions in the matter, this Court ordered to maintain status quo as to possession of the land. The learned Standing Counsel has now filed the counter-affidavit in both the matters which were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit of the temple in W. P. No. 19169 of 2003, it is stated that the petitioners filed Tenancy cases, which were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same they filed Civil Revision Petition being crp Nos. 4162, 4165, 4167, 4168 and 4230 of 2003 and obtained interim orders. The petitioners suppressed this fact in the writ petitions. The tenancy period expired in march, 2000. Therefore auction was conducted on 23-8-2003. The petitioners made a representation to the Executive officer of the Temple to postpone the auction to 4. 00 p. m. instead of 10. 00 a. m. on that day. They also informed that they may be given a last chance for obtaining orders from this Court. Considering the request the Executive Officer conducted auction at 4. 00 p. m. The auction was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder at Rs. 1,75,600. 00 per annum, who paid Rs. 1,42,100. 00. Possession of the land was also handed over on 2-9-2003. The allegation that the petitioners are cultivating tenants is denied. The allegation that they are tenants for the last 30 years is also denied stating that petitioners-2 to 4 who are inducted as tenants during 1997-98 for a period of three years. The lease expired in March, 2000. In the case of Petitioners-1 and 5 also, lease period expired and auction was conducted thereafter. The petitioners were cultivating tenants in respect of land admeasuring more than Ac. 9. 00s and therefore Section 82 (2) of the Act and the Rules have no application.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit of the executive Officer in W. P. No. 19920