K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners challenge, through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the action of the 1st respondent in auctioning the leasehold rights in the land covered by Survey No. 204 of Boni Village, anandapuram Mandal, Visakapatnam District, by public auction.

( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner and his deceased brother, namely Laxman Rao, the husband of the 2nd petitioner, in the year 1964 had taken on lease agricultural lands admeasuring Ac. 41. 50 cts. of Survey No. 204 of Boni Village, District visakapatnam (in short the suit land ) (on lease) for Rs. 2. 07. 50 from one Sri k. Satyanarayana, for a period of ten years. On 4-3-1974, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the 1st petitioner and his deceased brother, Laxman Rao, to vacate the suit land because it wanted to sell the leasehold rights in the suit land by public auction. The 1st petitioner and his deceased brother, laxman Rao, unsuccessfully challenged the notice in Civil Court. The 1st respondent filed a suit O. S. 57/80 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, vijayanagaram for recovery of Rs. 11,880-00 Ps. being mesne profits for the years 1974-75 to 1979-80. The claim in the suit was compromised by the first respondent and the first petitioner and his deceased brother, Laxman Rao, and a compromise decree was passed on 12-11-1982 and by virtue of which the 1st respondent granted lease in favour of the petitioner and his deceased brother Laxman Rao for a period of six years beginning from 1-7-1983 and in pursuance thereof, a registered sale (sic. lease) deed was executed on 20-12-1984 by the first respondent in their favour. The lease money was settled at Rs. 1800/- per annum for the suit land payable in the month of March of every year. They regularly cultivated the land and paid the lease money during the lease period. When they sent the lease money for the year 1989-90 through money order as advance, the 1st respondent refused to accept the same. The 1st respondent served a legal notice to them demanding vacant possession of the suit land on the ground that the lease had expired by efflux of time. They were also informed that the leasehold rights in the suit land would be sold by public auction wherein they may also participate. They sent a demand draft for Rs. 1800. 00ps. on 20-6-1989 being the lease money, but it was not accepted and by beat of drums, the date of auction was proclaimed as 3-6-1989. The petitioners claim that their rights are protected under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by the amending Act of 1974 and, therefore, the lease that had been granted to them shall be deemed to be in perpetuity, renewable in every six years. Therefore, the provisions of Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short endowments Act ) shall not be made applicable and, therefore, the 1st respondent cannot sell the leasehold rights in the lands in question by public auction.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent through its counter, while admitting that lease for a period of six years beginning from 1-7-1983 for the suit land had been granted in favour of the petitioners through registered sale (sic. lease) deed dated 20- 12-1984, denied the right of the petitioners to continue in possession of the suit lands on the ground that after the expiry of the period of lease, the first respondent was entitled to lease the suit land by public auction and, therefore, auction was held on 30-6-1989 in which one Mr. N. S. N. Raju was declared the highest bidder. They pleaded that the petitioners are encroachers within the meaning of Section 83 of the Endowments Act and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to remain in possession of the suit land.

( 4 ) THE second and the third respondents did not file their counters.

( 5 ) RELYING on the case of S. Narayana vs. State of A. P. it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that unless the operatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document