IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that eviction actions must comply with procedural requirements, emphasizing the necessity of notice and adherence to established rules.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction (i) declaring the action of the respondents taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac 5. 00 situated in Sy No 374 of Thimidithapadu of Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and in contravention of Rule 3 of A.P. charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules 2003 (ii) to declare the proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent Assistant commissioner cancelling the small farmers certificate issued in favour of the petitioners husband is in contravention of the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 and 5 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003 (iii) to declare the action of the Respondents taking steps to evict the Petitioner is in contravention of the procedure contemplated under Sections 82, 83( 4) 84 and 85 of the Endowments Act (iv) to declare the 5th respondent is not competent to issue notice and issuance of such notice by the 5th Respondent is in contravention of Rule 3 and 5 of the Lease Rules and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the proceedings in Rc No A9/2624/2016 dated 14.6.2016 and consequential conduct of auction, as illegal and pass ….…”

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband by name D. Nagaiah is the tenant of the subject land situated in Sy.No.374 to an extent of Ac 5.00 belongs to Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple or the last several decades. After his demise, the petitioner is paying the lease amount and paid the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 way back on 5.4.2016. Even after collecting the lease amount for the next agricultural year by the 4th respondent, high handedly sought to conduct a public auction of the lease hold rights. Accordingly, the petitioner along with similarly situated farmers filed writ petitions before this Court seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus insisting to vacate the respective agricultural lands pursuant to notice dated 18.4.2016 issued by the 6th respondent without deciding their clients as a small farmers though they submitted an explanation on 21.5.2016 and the same were disposed of vide order dated 14.6.2016 directing the respondents not to dispossess without passing final orders pursuant to Notice dated 18.4.2016. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband Nagaiah was declared as a small farmer after due enquiry by the 4th respondent by an order dated 4.9.2013.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in conducting the auction of lease hold rights of the lands situated in Sy.No.374 to an extent of Ac. 5.00 of dry land under the possession of the petitioner, though the petitioner’s husband was declared as small farmer vide proceedings in Rc.No. B4/3635/2003, dated 4-9-2003. Once the petitioner was declared as a small farmer in terms of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Lease of Agricultural land) Rules, 2003, and having collected the lease amount of for the year, 2016-17 the respondents are disentitled to come to the conclusion without issuing notice. Basing on the report said to have been submitted by the 4th respondent, ignoring the certificate which was issued by the Revenue Officer stating no land has been recorded in the petitioner’s name, the petitioner is landless poor person and her annual income is about 15,000/-. It is further stated that the petitioner’s husband D. Nagaiah is the tenant of the land situated in Sy.No.374 to an extent of Ac. 5.00 belongs to Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple for the last several decades. After the petitioner’s husband demise, the petitioner is paying the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 and that the respondents are disentitled to evict the petitioner after collecting the