ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3.

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in not considering the representations of the petitioner dated 09.05.2023, 27.08.2022 and 21.02.2022 for mutation of her name in the Devasthanam records for the plot No.14 situated at Door No.2-3-63 opposite to Karivenavanisatram, Srisailam temple, Srisailam, Kurnool District.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the right to run the Bunk upon a lease granted infavour of one Smt Ketawath Nagamallamma by the respondent No.3-Devasthanam through a lease deed dated 16.08.2014 which was executed on a stamp paper. According to it, the orginal lessee by name Smt Ketawath Nagamallamma, sold the right to run the bunk in the subject land by taking a sum of Rs.2,00,000 from the petitioner and the petitioner is running the bunk for the present in the subject land by paying the necessary lease amount and other charges to the respondent No.3-Devasthanam.

Hence, relying upon the said document dated

16.08.2014, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 to mutate her name in the Devasthanam records as lessee of the subject land/plot for running the above said bunk in it. But the same is not considered. Hence, she got issued legal notices dated 21.02.2022, 27.08.2022 and 09.05.2023 for the purpose of mutation of her name in the Devasthanam records and for issuance of necessary receipts for the rents paid and the other charges.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel relying upon the counter of the respondent No.3 submits that about 30 years back as per the policy decision of the respondent No.3-Devasthanam alloted 8 shops to the local Scheduled Tribe persons for the purpose of their livelihood on lease basis only and the shops were not allotted by way of selling them to anybody by the respondent-Devasthanam. Any sale transcation of the right to run the shop or selling the plots itself to the third parties is prohibited under law as the respondent No.3-Devasthanam alone is the owner and possessor of the plots including the subject plot and it enables only the lessee to run the business in the subject plot in accordance with law without the power of allenation of the lease hold rights.

All the shops are alloted for lease by conducting public auction as per the rules in force by the respondent No.3- Devasthanam. Any allenation made by the lessee with respect to the lease hold rights is prohibited under law and the same is not binding on the respondent No.3, as the transcation is null and void.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances the contents of the above said document relied upon by the petitioner dated 16.08.2014, cannot be looked into as it becomes purely an un-official transcation entered into between the parties which will not bind the respondent No.3 in any manner. In view of the same either the representations or the legal notices got issued by the petitioner cannot be considered by the respondent No.3 as there is no sanctity in the relief sought by the petitioner in the Writ Peition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

20.11.2023 SNI

104 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.24541 OF 2023

20.11.2023 SNI