Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Girijala Simhachalam vs The State Of Ap on 8 January, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.984 of 2023
Girijala Simhachalam,
S/o. Ramulu, aged 58 years,
H.No.13-143, Indira colony, Bhimadole,
West Godavari District.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Endowments Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and eight others.
...Respondents
Mr. K. K. Durga Prasad, Counsel, representing Mr. Babuji Tenneti,
Counsel for the appellant.
Government Pleader for Endowments, Counsel for respondent
Nos.1, 2 to 5 and 7.
Government Pleader for Revenue, Counsel for respondent Nos.3
and 8.
Ms. Pulipati Radhika, Standing Counsel for respondent No.6.
None for respondent No.9.
HCJ & RRR, J
DATE : 08.01.2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent
has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
20.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.16538 of 2023 whereby the writ
petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the material facts are that the appellant filed
the writ petition before the learned single Judge challenging the
auction conducted by the Executive Officer, Sri Cherukuwada
Choultry, Powerpeta, Eluru District/respondent No.6, in respect of
land measuring three acres fifty three cents in Survey No. 267, five
acres and eighty cents in Survey No.282/1 in all measuring nine
acres thirty three cents of Bhimadole Village in Eluru District. The
case of the appellant was that he was granted a lease by respondent
No.6 for a period of three years pursuant to an auction conducted
on 21.06.2021. It was stated that leasehold rights were granted in
favour of the appellant for cultivating the land for a period of three
years i.e., 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and that such a right was
confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department,
Kakinada, vide its proceedings dated 06.07.2021. Cause of action is
stated to have accrued to the appellant when a notice, dated
05.05.2023, was issued asking him to pay an amount of
HCJ & RRR, J
Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Only) as
arrears, failing which the appellant, it is stated, was threatened
that the lease would be cancelled and auction would be conducted in
terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. A reply
also is stated to have been submitted on 23.06.2023. It is stated
that without considering the reply the tender-cum-auction notice
was issued on 26.06.2023 and the date of auction was reflected as
29.06.2023.
3. The appellant's case is that he had sought re-survey of land in
question by the authorities, as the land which was leased out was
less by one acre. Not only this, the case of the appellant before the
writ Court was that the land which was so given on lease was low
lying and could not be cultivated and therefore, losses were
suffered. It was therefore urged that the official respondents ought
not to have proceeded to conduct an auction of the leased land
during the subsistence of the lease period and further, in doing so,
principles of natural justice had been violated.
4. Case of the official respondents, on the other hand, was that
the lease had been granted upon certain terms and conditions one
of which was that the lessee had to pay an amount of Rs.1,32,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Only) per crop, failing
HCJ & RRR, J
which the lease in terms of the Clause 14 of the auction conditions,
would be determined and be subject to further auction. Apart from
this, even condition No.21 of the auction notice specifically states
that the bidder would not be entitled to raise a dispute with regard
to the discrepancies in regard to the measurement/extent of land.
5. The learned single Judge however dismissed the writ petition
by holding that the principles of natural justice had not been
violated and that notices had been issued to the appellant,
inasmuch as he had failed to perform his part of the duty in
depositing the lease amount after every crop.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to reiterate the
grounds as were urged before the learned single Judge.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly,
the lease granted in favour of the appellant was subject to the
condition that an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty
Two Thousand Only) would be paid by the appellant after every
crop. Failure of the appellant to do the needful would result in
determination of the lease and re-auction of the property in terms
of the Clause 14 of the auction conditions. Admittedly, notice dated
05.05.2023 was issued to the appellant to which even according to
the appellant a reply was submitted. If the land in question was
uncultivable or was in any manner less than what was supposed to
HCJ & RRR, J
have been given to the appellant in the auction conducted in the
year 2021, it would have been open to the appellant to surrender
his rights over the same. However, the appellant cannot have the
cake and eat it too, by holding on to the leased premises yet
claiming that the lease ought not to be determined on the ground
that it measured less or the same was uncultivable or was low lying.
8. The official respondents appear to have taken steps in
determining the lease, in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the auction notice and as rightly held by the learned single
Judge, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal,
and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
SSN
HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 08.01.2024
SSN
