BAPURAM VENKAT REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these writ petitions relate to the leasehold rights of the same land and arise out of the facts, which are inter-related, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) W.P.No.10173 of 2020 and W.P.No.9688 of 2021 have been filed by the same petitioner. W.P.No.13104 of 2021 has been filed by another set of petitioners.

(3.) W.P.No.10173 of 2020 was filed challenging the conduct of auction dtd. 8/6/2020 of the leasehold rights of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.4.04 cents in Sy.No.117, Ac.5.86 cents in Sy.No.147 and Ac.18.09 cents in Sy.No.152 of Bapuram Village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the said lands had been given as Inam Lands to the ancestors of the petitioner for rendering certain services to the 4th respondent-temple. As there was a threat of dispossession, on account of the then Chairman of the Trust Board of the 4th respondent-temple, O.S.No.121 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner, before the Additional District Munsif Judge, Adoni for permanent injunction against the then Trust Board and some other persons claiming to be the lessees. This suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 9/12/1988 giving liberty to the authorities to take steps for eviction in accordance with law. This order was affirmed by the Appellate Court in A.S.No.24 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Jude, Adoni, vide judgment dtd. 14/7/1997. The complaint of the petitioner was that even though the petitioner and his family were in possession of the said land and have not been evicted, the Executive Officer of the group of temples, Adoni could not have conducted the auction of the leasehold rights of the said land as the petitioners were in possession and any auction of the leasehold rights of the land cannot fructify into a completed contract, as the successful bidder cannot be put in possession of the land. On 19/6/2020, this Court granted interim stay against the respondents seeking to dispossess the petitioner and the said order was extended from time to time.