Judgment : Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri P.C. Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner claims that one Vankadari Venkataramayya was the owner of Survey No.468/2, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa Taluk and he was succeeded by his son Subbaiah. The petitioner claimed the said Subbaiah to have gifted an extent of 45 cents subdivided as Survey No.468/2 A-1 under an unregistered gift deed dated 18-09-1960 to Perrala Ramaswamy, son of Perrala Pedda Rama Swamy. Perrala Balakondaiah, his son, succeeded Ramaswamy and Perrala Krishnaiah succeeded his father Perrala Balakondaiah. Perrala Krishnaiah executed a registered gift deed dated 29-03-2007 in favour of his son Perrala Ramakrishna and the said Ramakrishna sold the land to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 27-05-2008. The petitioner claimed that while he is in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner, the 1st respondent put the property to public auction of its leasehold rights on which the petitioner immediately went to the 1st respondent and showed his documents. The 1st respondent did not pay any heed to his request and hence, the writ petition questioning the impugned public auction notice dated 12-06-2012 putting the leasehold rights of the said land to auction. The 1st respondent in its counter affidavit through the Executive Officer stated that Vankadari Venkataramayya is Vysya, while Perrala Ramaswamy is Yadava and Vankadari Venkataramayya whether he had any issues or not, had endowed the property to the 1st respondent temple during his lifetime. The 1st respondent asserted that Vankadari Venkataramayya had no issues and the unregistered Gift deed dated 18-09-1960, the gift deed dated 29-03-2007 and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner were fabricated to create evidence of title and possession and regarding the same land, one Dasaripalli Subbanna, son of Subbaiah executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of his sons Srinivasulu and Ravi Kumar and Ravi Kumar was not his own son as mentioned in the Gift deed and thus documents are sought to be fabricated in respect of the temple property. The petitioner or his predecessors-in-title are never in possession and the performance of pujas in the temple by Sri Perrala Ramakrishnaiah and his forefathers was taken advantage by the petitioner in collusion with Perrala Ramakrishnaiah for creating of these documents. The petitioner or his predecessors-in-title are never in possession and the performance of pujas in the temple by Sri Perrala Ramakrishnaiah and his forefathers was taken advantage by the petitioner in collusion with Perrala Ramakrishnaiah for creating of these documents. The copy of Adangal shows the land to be standing in the name of Buddayapalli Ramaswamy and hence, the 1st respondent desired the interim direction granted by this Court to be vacated and the writ petition to be dismissed. The petitioner in his reply affidavit contended that the Executive Officer could not have made the statements made in the counter affidavit without verification of facts and the alleged Endowment had absolutely no documentary evidence to support its claim. The petitioner further stated that he is paying the land revenue in respect of the land since number of years. Even the Adangals filed by the temple do not show the temple to be the owner of the property. The temple did not file any documentary evidence to show its title or interest in the property and the very registration of the gift deed and the sale deed gave notice to the entire world about the transactions. The petitioner further claimed that Buddayapalli Ramaswamy is none other than the grandfather of Perrala Krishnaiah and the reference to his name in the Adangal as deity of the temple is admitted and hence, he desired the writ petition to succeed. The pleadings or the material papers placed by both the parties do not indicate this land of 45 cents in Survey No.468/2A-1 of Buddayapalli village to have been subjected to any auction of its leasehold rights by or on behalf of the 1st respondent temple before the impugned auction notice dated 12-06-2012. The Resettlement register in respect of Survey No.468/2 further showed it as sub-divided into 468/2 A and 468/2 B. One Vankadari Venkataramayya was mentioned as the pattedar, while Buddayapalle Ramaswami deity was specifically mentioned as the pattedar of Survey No.468/5. So, it is clear that by the time of the entries made in the Resettlement register, the land was not specified to be belonging to the temple, but was stated to be belonging to a private person. So, it is clear that by the time of the entries made in the Resettlement register, the land was not specified to be belonging to the temple, but was stated to be belonging to a private person. The copy of the unregistered gift deed dated 18-09-1960 is as though one Vankadari Venkata Subbaiah, son of Vankadari Venkataramayya executed the said gift deed in respect of the land in Survey No.468/2 in favour of Perrala Ramaswamy, son of Perrala Pedda Ramaswamy reciting the reason for the gift as the service that was rendered by the donee and his family members in the temple of Sree Ramaswamy, Buddayapalli village. The unregistered gift deed was executed on a stamp paper, which appeared to have been purchased on 18-09-1960 itself and the document was subscribed to by the attestors and the scribe. At this distance of time, in the absence of any positive material, it may not be open to be presumed in these summary proceedings that Vankadari Venkataramayya had no son by name Venkata Subbaiah and the entries in the Resettlement register and the unregistered gift deed may indicate acquisition of interest in the property by Perrala Ramaswamy, son of Pedda Ramaswamy by virtue of those documents and when it came to the entries in the Adangals, the copies of which are filed by the 1st respondent temple, some subdivisions in Survey No.468 were shown to be under the patta of Buddayapalli Ramaswamy, while some sub-divisions were shown to be under the patta of Ramaswamy or as Sri Ramaswamy manyam. The difference between the names of Buddayapalli Ramaswamy and Ramaswamy cannot be overlooked and the distinction between the two names cannot be erased by seeking to project both the entries as referring to the 1st respondent temple only. Sri Perrala Krishnaiah, who executed the registered gift settlement deed on 29-03-2007 is sought to be connected with Perrala Ramaswamy, the donee under the unregistered gift deed, by the petitioner by claiming him to be the grandson of Ramaswamy. The executant of the gift deed dated 29-03-2007 claimed absolute ownership and possession of the land in question and the donee under the said document is the vendor of the petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 27-05-2008 under which the petitioner is claiming the land to be belonging to him. The executant of the gift deed dated 29-03-2007 claimed absolute ownership and possession of the land in question and the donee under the said document is the vendor of the petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 27-05-2008 under which the petitioner is claiming the land to be belonging to him. The alleged endowment to the temple by Venkataramaiah or such endowment being subsequently acted upon at any time are not evidenced by any document. Therefore, as of now, on the material placed on record, it cannot be said that, ex facie, the land could have been claimed to be belonging to the 1st respondent temple and hence, the auction of its leasehold rights may not be sustainable. However, as disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the analysis of the material placed on record herein is only to the extent of examining the justification for the 1st respondent to auction the leasehold rights of the particular land and it is open to the 1st respondent, if it is so advised and so desires, to take recourse to any appropriate proceedings, which are available to it under law in respect of this land against the petitioner and in any such proceedings that may be taken recourse to by the 1st respondent, these proceedings or this order shall not have any impact and such proceedings shall have to be decided on their own merits. Under the circumstances, the impugned public auction notice dated 12-06-2012 in respect of 45 cents in Survey No.468/2 A-1 of Buddayapalli village, Hamlet of Chinna Chowk Revenue village, Kadapa District is quashed without prejudice to the rights of the 1st respondent to take recourse to any appropriate remedies available to it under law in respect of the said land against the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed accordingly without costs.