Dismissed

Penumallu Nooka Reddy v. The Regional Joint Commisisoner,Endowments Department

Telangana HC20 Jul 2007WP/15554/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral order dismissing a writ petition challenging the auction of land for fresh lease after the petitioner’s lease expired. The court held that the temple can auction the land and recover possession by treating the continuing possessor as an encroacher under the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act provisions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondent entitled to auction and recover possession as per the Act; petitioner may participate in auction if advised.

Penumallu Nooka Reddy Vs The Regional Joint… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15554 OF 2007

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner herein was granted lease of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents situated in Ramanakkapeta village, U. Kothapalli Mandal belonging to the 2^nd respondent for a period of three years viz., from 2004-05 to 2006-07. Admittedly, the said period has expired. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent-Temple proposed to conduct public auction for grant of fresh lease. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed contending inter alia that though the lease period has expired, since the petitioner is continuing in possession of the land, the 2^nd respondent cannot conduct the auction without dispossessing him following due process of law.

¶5

Since, admittedly, the lease in favour of the petitioner has expired, the mere fact that the petitioner is continuing in possession as on today does not disentitle the 2^nd respondent to put the leasehold rights of the land in question to public auction. So far as recovery of possession is concerned, since the petitioner comes within the definition of “encroacher” as defined under the Explanation to Section 83(1) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), the 2^nd respondent is entitled to take possession following the procedure prescribed under Sections 84 to 86 of the Act.

¶6

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to participate in the auction, if so advised. No costs.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is standing crop on the land. If that be so, it is open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the 2^nd respondent, in which event, the 2^nd respondent will consider the same in accordance

¶8

with law.

¶9

____________ (G. ROHINI, J.)

¶10

20^th July, 2007. Kgr

¶11

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.15554 OF 2007

¶13

20^th July, 2007.

¶14

Between:

¶15

Penumallu Nooka Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District and others. .. Respondents.

Penumallu Nooka Reddy v. The Regional Joint Commisisoner,Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penumallu Nooka Reddy v. The Regional Joint Commisisoner,Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Munemma Vs The Joint Collector, Chittoor

Potharaju Subhash Rama Mohan Rao, Vs The Andhra Bank Rep.by its Authorized Officer, Under

M/s.Suryalatha Spinning Mills Ltd., Marchala village Vs Regional Director, Employees State Insurance corporation

Kakani Purnachander Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by secretary

M/s. J.C.M. Silk Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Regional Office

M.Renuka Vs The General Manager, South Central Railway