The central legal point established in the judgment is that a party seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands and abide by the terms and conditions of the lease, particularly regarding the payment of maktha.

ORDER :

1. One who seeks equity must do equity. A person who comes to the Court to seek equity should come with clean hands.

2. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 6th respondent in conducting tender cum open auction in respect of S.No.267, Ac.3.53 cents and S.No.282/1, Ac.5.80 cents, total Ac.9.33 cents (but on ground Ac.8.33 cents) of Bhimadole village and Mandal, Eluru District belongs to 6th respondent Choultry during subsistence of lease period of petitioner till 21.06.2024, is illegal, arbitrary, without following due process of law, principles of natural justice, apart from violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to stay all further proceedings dated 26.06.2023 issued by 6th respondent for tender cum open auction in respect of S.No.267, Ac.3.53 cents and S.No.282/1, Ac.5.80 cents, total Ac.9.33 cents (but on ground Ac.8.33 cents) of Bhimadole village and Mandal, Eluru District … …”

3....

(a) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner is successful bidder in the auction held on 21.06.2021, conducted by 6th respondent for a period of 3 years i.e. from 2021-22 to 2023-24, for cultivating the lands on leasehold of an extent of Ac.3.53 cents in S.No.267 and Ac.5.80 cents in S.No.282/1 belonged to 6th respondent. The lease amount is Rs.1,32,500/- per crop. Lease was confirmed by 4th respondent-Deputy Commissioner on 06.07.2021. At the time of handing over possession of land, it was not surveyed. Subsequently, it was found that Ac.1.00 cents is less in extent and the same was brought to the notice of 6th respondent. Petitioner also submitted written representation dated 29.08.2022.

(b) The 6th respondent issued notice dated 05.05.2023 demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- as arrears, otherwise auction will be conducted as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder. Petitioner submitted reply/representation dated 23.06.2023. The 6th respondent issued tender-cum-auction notice dated 26.06.2023 to conduct public auction on 29.06.2023, however none participated. With the above averments, the writ petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 & 7 and Smt.Pulipati Radhika, learned standing counsel for 6th respondent.

5. On 07.07.2023, mention was made to take up the writ petition by way of lunch motion. Learned standing counsel submitted that auction was conducted and the bid was knocked down for Rs.1,35,000/- and the lessee paid the advance. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2023 to produce the record. Accordingly, learned standing counsel produced the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the auction conducted on 21.06.2021, for a period of three years, petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. Subsistence of lease, conducting auction by 6th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. He would also submit that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating the lease. He would submit that the extent of property mentioned in the auction notice is less on ground and without considering the petitioner’s representation, 6th respondent proceeded with auction and thus, prayed to set aside the auction.

7. Learned standing counsel for 6th respondent, on the other hand, would submit that petitioner failed to pay Maktha amount and hence, notice was issued on 05.05.2023 stating that in case, petitioner fails to pay the amount, lease will be cancelled, and the authorities will proceed with the auction. However, he failed to respond to it. Further submitted that from the beginning the petitioner is not paying the amount regularly and 6th respondent issued number of notic