Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/25959/2014 of Yaganti Singaraiah, S/o. Peraiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25959/2014 Between: Yaganti Singaraiah, S/o. Peraiah,
APHC010681092014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 25959/2014
Between:
Yaganti Singaraiah, S/o. Peraiah,
...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.K SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.V T M PRASAD
2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“….to i ssue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing fresh notification dated 29.08.2014 for grant of lease hold rights in respect of Sy No 526 to an extent of Ac 9 35 cents situated at Chennupalli Village Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District is illegal arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and fair play consequently set aside the same….”the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing fresh notification dated 29.08.2014 for grant of lease hold rights in respect of Sy No 526 to an extent of Ac 9 35 cents situated at Chennupalli Village Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District is illegal arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and fair play consequently set aside the same….”
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent issued auction notice for the land in Sy.No.526 (Old Sy.No.129) admeasuring Ac.9.35 cents situated at Chennupalli village and Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner has participated in the said auction and he is the highest bidder and that the petitioner has declared as successful bidder of the public auction dated 04.04.2014. Thereafter, the Sarpanch of the village filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, alleging that the 3[rd] respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Act for conduction of public auction. In the said petition, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur hereby VEGOED the lease hold lease of land belongs to the 3rd respondent temple on 10.08.2014 vide its proceedings in Rc.No.A1/4582/2014-1- Adm. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued public auction notice on 16.08.2014 for conduction of fresh auction on 27.08.2014 at about 10.30 AM in the gram panchayat of Chennupalli Village. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No.24202 of 2014 before this Court and also filed W.A SR) No.138535 of 2014 and the same are pending. While the matter stood thus, the 3[rd] respondent again issue fresh notification on 29.08.2014 for grnat of lease hold rights in respect of land in Sy No.526 to an extent of Ac 9.35 cents of the lands belongs to the 3[rd] respondent temple and auction to be held on 4.9.2014. It is stated that, once the matter is subsidized before his Court, but the 3[rd] respondent issued fresh notification stating that the auction to be held on 4.9.2014 is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondents are present.
4. On a perusal of the proceeding sheet, this Court, vide order, dated 03.09.2014, while issuing Rule Nisi, has held that the auction proposed to be held on 4.9.2014 shall go on, but the same shall not be finalized until further orders.
5. As stated by learned Government Pleader that the lease period is for three years i.e., from 2014 to 2017 itself. It appears that the lease was ended by 2017 itself. So, in view of the same, nothing survives in the present writ petition for further adjudication and the same is liable to be closed.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
____________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date : 31.12.2024
Gvl
Gvl
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.25959 OF 2014
Date: 31.12.2024