Mekapati Mallikarjuna Vs Rayi Nagaraju

Advocate for appellant : Sri D. V. Sasidhar Advocate for respondents : Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Ms. Devi Subhashini Anne, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments.

¶11

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶12

DATE : 2nd December 2025

¶13

P C :

¶14

The petitioner was granted a lease of temple land measuring Ac.82-32 cents in the year 2021 which was to remain valid for a period of three years. Later, the same was extended up to 2025. The period expired on 27.07.2025.

¶15

A writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner bearing number 17508 of 2025 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for extension of lease. A statement appears to have been made by the learned counsel representing the temple authorities, upon instructions, that they would have no objection to extend the lease provided the petitioner enhance the lease amount by 40%, which would be on par with the lease

¶16

2

¶17

amount which was paid by similarly situate other lessees in the neighbouring land.

¶18

Learned single Judge, based upon the said statement, issued directions to the authorities to consider the grant of extension in the lease period for a period of three years.

¶19

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the judgment and order impugned is unsustainable inasmuch as the relevant provisions and the Rules governing the grant of leases pertaining to temple authorities were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. It was on that basis that by virtue of our order dated 07.10.2025, we had stayed the operation of the judgment and order impugned.

¶20

Our attention has been drawn to the provisions of Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, the Rules of 2003”). Rule 7 envisages that all leases shall be by way of Tender-cum-Public Auction on Annual Advance Rental basis. Rule 7(1)(b) further envisages that the executive authority shall conduct Tender – cum – Public Auction compulsorily three months before expiry of existing lease period. Rule 8 envisages that no lease shall be granted for a period exceeding three years and further that in case it is proposed to grant a lease for a period exceeding the limit of three years, then, the executive authority is required to obtain prior permission from the Commissioner even before causing publication of the notice under Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules.

¶21

3

¶22

On a reading of Rule 8(2)(b)(ii), it can be seen that the Commissioner

¶23

has been given the power to grant a lease for a period up to six years. However, if the said period has to exceed the outer limit of six years, the Commissioner has to refer the case to the Government, which, then is required to pass appropriate orders after due consideration.

¶24

Rule 8(3) envisages the situation where the crops fail in a locality due to natural calamities. The lease in those circumstances can be extended for a further period of one year for the same rate without enhancement of the rental. This is, however, subject to the Government notifying those Mandals where the Mandals are affected by such calamities.

¶25

In the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is Rule 7, which has a strict application inasmuch as the period of three years having been expired, the petitioner, private respondent No.1 herein, would have no right at all to seek any extension, which is otherwise not envisaged in terms of either Rule 7 or Rule 8(3). It was urged that the only option which was available to the official respondents would be to call for tenders and allot the parcel of land to the highest tenderer.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that although the rule position, as envisaged by Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003, is in place, yet, in view of the fact that the petitioner had grown eucalyptus plants on the parcel of land in question, it would be unfair to the petitioner in case the land in question was to be allotted to some other else as he would incur heavy losses.

¶27

4

¶28

While we can understand the difficulty of the petitioner, who may have planted certain plants on the parcel of land, yet, the petitioner still has a chance to participate in the tendering process and considering his stakes involved in the land in question, can make a bid which would protect his economic interest in the aforementioned parcel of land, which is approximately Ac.82-32 cents.

¶29

In view of the specific provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003, we cannot issue any direction which would run contrary to the said Rule and issue orders which would have the effect of perpetuating the possession of the petitioner over the said parcel of land.

¶30

Be that as it may, we allow this appeal setting aside the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned single Judge. It shall be open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with the Rules of 2003 in which the petitioner would be, however, at liberty to remove the crops/trees which had been planted by him.

¶31