ANNAVARAPU ASIRVADAM Vs. ENDOWMENTS HYD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

(2.) Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.47 of 2015 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that, all petitioners are Land Less Poor persons and their elders were given lease hold rights by the then management of the 4th respondent temple. Since then i.e., for the past 60 years, their families have been cultivating the lands belonging to the 4th respondent temple for their livelihood. This fact is not disputed by the authorities. Due to poverty and illiteracy the petitioners' elders have not availed the benefit given under Sec. 82 of Act 30 of 1987. Some of the petitioners herein were served with Form-I notice in the year 2003. Aggrieved with the same, they have filed WP No.15752 of 2003 before the composite High Court at Hyderabad and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Sec. 82 of the Act. Till the decision is taken, status quo was also ordered. In pursuance of the same, the officers took details from the petitioners with a letter to extend the benefit under Sec. 82 of the Act declaring the petitioners as landless poor persons. But no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Accordingly, the petitioners made several requests. Though the petitioners are entitled to purchase the land which they have hold and cultivate as stipulated under Sec. 82 of the Act, to protect their continuous possession they were forced to participate in public auction conducted by the 4 th respondent temple for every 3 years. All the years the petitioners are participating in auctions and they were also extended the lease period for 2013-2014 on condition of giving 23 bags of rice per Acre and accordingly the petitioners have given the same and sought for further extension. While the matter stood thus, surprisingly the authorities have issued proceedings vide L.DS.No.2/14931/2014, dtd. 28/6/2014 rejecting the request of the petitioners and further directing the 4th respondent to conduct public auction as per G.O.Ms.No379 dtd. 11/3/2003, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition.