1. This Court ordered notice before admission and while permitting the Counsel for petitioners to serve notice on respondents, it was further ordered pending further orders, the proposed auction may go on but the same shall not be confirmed. Subsequent thereto, after a couple of adjournments, this Court issued rule nisi on 7-9-2007. The 4th respondent filed a W.V.M.P.No.2087/2007 praying for the vacation of the interim order dated 24-7- 2007 referred to supra. The 5th respondent also filed counter affidavit.

2. Though the matter appeared under the caption of Interlocutory, the learned Counsel representing the respective parties made a request for the disposal of the Writ Petition itself and thus with the consent of the Counsel on record, the Writ Petition itself was taken up for final disposal.

3. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in no extending the lease in favour of the petitioners herein as they are cultivating tenants of the land in question in an extent of Ac.53 situated in Sy.Nos.51, 52, 73, 74, 75, 94, 95, 96, 101, 102 and 144 of Eluru village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District and issuing auction notice dt.5-7-2007 by the 4th respondent Temple for conduct of auction schedule to be held on 27-7-2007 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the A.P.Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rule 2003 and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for consequential reliefs and set aside the same by further directing the respondents to consider the lease in favour of the petitioners as cultivating tenants by enhancing the lease amount and to pass such other suitable orders.

4. Sri Ganga Kumar representing Sri Prabhakar, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the averments made in the respective counter affidavits and also certain admissions made in the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent and also further had taken this Court through several of the cist receipts and the relevant provisions of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter would be referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) and also the A.P.Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rule 2003 (hereinafter in short would be referred to as Rules for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that despite the fact that all these petitioners are small farmers and landless poor persons and cultivating tenants for sufficiently a long time and despite the fact that several representations were made in this regard, which are pending disposal, the 4th respondent Temple is further proceeding with the conducting of auction and the same is illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hence the Writ Petition to be allowed.

5. The learned A.G.P. for Endowments representing R.1 to R.3 would submit that in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent it is clear that there is no acceptable material to establish that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hence the action of the 4th respondent is well justified.

6. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned Counsel representing 4th respondent had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that the petitioners approached this Court with several false averments as can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and even if the cist receipts and other material to be taken into consideration, nothing is available on reco