Disposed

Suryadevara Rama Krishna, v. The State of andhra pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2021WP/10842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a leasehold dispute over temple land, the High Court directed the temple not to dispossess the lessee for two months to allow harvesting of a standing banana crop before conducting the auction for the subsequent period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to not dispossess the petitioner for two months to enable harvesting of the standing banana crop.

Suryadevara Rama Krishna, Vs The State of andhra pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.10842 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is the lessee of the 4^th respondent-temple to an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in Sy.No.560 of Donepudi Village, Kolluru Mandal, Guntur District having obtained the leasehold rights by way of an auction conducted on 06.07.2020.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that the leasehold rights were auctioned for a period of three years commencing from 2020-21 to 2022-23. The petitioner after being declared as highest bidder and after paying the annual rent for the year 2020-21, had entered into the land and had set up Banana garden on the understanding that he would be entitled to continue as lessee for three years. However, the 4^th respondenttemple, by an auction notice dated 25.05.2021, had proposed auction of the leasehold rights of the said land for the year 2021-22. Aggrieved by the said auction that was proposed to be conducted on 07.06.2021, the petitioner had approached this Court. By an order dated 03.06.2021, this Court had granted status quo with regard to the subject land.

¶6

Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had participated in the auction in the belief that the auction was for three years and in fact the auction notice dated 26.06.2020 itself stipulated that the auction was for the period 2021-21 to 2022-23. He submits that the proposed auction of 07.06.2021 cannot be permitted as

¶7

RRR,J W.P.No.10842 of 2021

¶8

¶9

it would cut into the lease period, which had already been granted to the petitioner.

¶10

The 4^th respondent-temple has now filed a counter affidavit stating that even though the auction was proposed to be held for three years, the period of lease for the land in Sy.No.560 was reduced to one year at the request of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek further extension of lease.

¶11

A perusal of the bid record along with the lease approval proceedings dated 27.07.2020 would show that the leasehold rights were auctioned only for year 2020-21. In the face of the said proceedings, the contention of the petitioner that the auction of leasehold rights was for a period of three years cannot be accepted.

¶12

Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already invested huge amount of money for raising Banana garden under the belief that he had the leasehold rights for three years. He submits that the next Banana crop is almost ripe for harvesting and seeks the indulgence of the Court to retain possession of the land for the next two months to be able to harvest the standing Banana crop.

¶13

In view of the above submission, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 4^th respondent-temple, not to dispossess the petitioner from the land under his possession in Sy.No.560, for a period of two

¶14

RRR,J 3 W.P.No.10842 of 2021

¶15

months to enable the petitioner to harvest the standing Banana crop. It would be open to the 4^th respondent-temple to conduct auction of the leasehold rights of the said land for the period after the lapse of the aforesaid two months of time i.e., 01.09.2021 onwards.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶19

08^th July, 2021 RJS

¶20

RRR,J 4 W.P.No.10842 of 2021

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶22

W.P.No.10842 of 2021

¶23

08^th July, 2021

¶24

RJS

Suryadevara Rama Krishna, v. The State of andhra pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryadevara Rama Krishna, v. The State of andhra pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vutukuri Rajarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Duggisetty Jaya Prada, Vs Sri K.V.N Chakradhar Babu

P Raghavendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ajmira Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of A.P.

G Perumal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ajmira Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of A.P.