A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges G.O.Ms.No.881, Revenue (Endowments II/1) Department, dated 19.08.2003, issued by the 1st respondent-State Government. By virtue of the said order, the State Government accorded permission for sale of land belonging to Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust in favour of the 4th respondent.

2. Heard Sri K. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for the 1st respondent-State Government, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Trust and Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is as under:

The land, admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas forming part of Sy.No.91/1, situated at Degloor Road, Nanded, Maharashtra State, was originally owned and possessed by Sri Kachrulal, S/o. Ganeshlal, Nanded Town, who sold the said land in favour of Sri Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, the 3rd respondent herein, by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No. 780/51, dated 7.09.1951. The 3rd respondent-Trust through its Chairman B. Kishan Lal has appointed one Sri Laxmikant Shankar Rao Gone S/o. Shankar Rao as G.P.A. holder of the Trust, vide document No. 2270 of 1994, dated 19.11.1994. The said G.P.A., leased out a portion of the land, admeasuring 6793.4 sq. yards in favour of the petitioner and two others, by way of registered lease deed bearing document No2956 of 1995, dated 18.08.1995, for a period of 99 years. Since the date of lease the petitioner is in exclusive enjoyment of the said property, and the name of the petitioner has been incorporated in the property record issued by the City Survey Office, Nanded and the petitioner is also paying property tax regularly. While so, the 1st respondent-State Government, while accepting the proposal of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, issued G.O.Ms. No. 881, dated 19.08.2003, according permission to sell the land and directed the 4th respondent to pay @ Rs.8.00 lakhs per hectare. Challenging the said G.O. the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi on 16.2.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.4287 of 2010 granted interim suspension of the impugned Governmental Order. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued, counter affidavits have been filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents, denying the averments and the allegations made in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned order.

5. Submissions/contentions of the counsel for the petitioner.

(i) The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’)

(ii) The respondents did not adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 80 of the Act and no reasons are assigned in the G.O, as per Section 80(1)(c) of the Act.

(iii) The Commissioner wrongly informed the Government that no litigation was pending.

(iv) The Government erred in issuing the impugned G.O., in favour of the 3rd respondent in view of the existence of lease in favour of the petitioner.

In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel places strong reliance on the orders in W.P.No.18083 of 2003 and batch, dated 4.04.2012, and judgments in Vangala Narasimhacharyulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and ors., 1995 (1) ALD 467and Smt. M. Chengamma v. V. Nagamani 2010 (4) U.P.L.M. 285 (HC).

6. Submissions of Sri Ch. Satish Kumar and Ravi Kondaviti, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

(i) This writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of delay of seven years in approaching this Court and there is no explanation whatsoever given by the petitioner for the said delay.

(ii) In pursuance of the impugned order the sale deed was executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent vide document No. 849 of 2004, dated 11.02.2004 and the