ORDER :- This writ petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in alienating the land in Sy.No.430-2B admeasuring Acs.6-59 cents belonging to Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple in Kalyandurg Polam, Ananthapur District pending consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.8.2007, without following due process of law as illegal, unjust and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the late father of the petitioner was cultivating the land belonging to the third respondent - temple covered under "Sy.No.430-28 admeasuring Acs.6-59 cents in Kalyandurg Polam, Ananthapur District and was paying lease amounts to the temple without any default. It is stated that after the death of his father, his mother and himself are cultivating the land by paying the lease amounts to the temple without committing any default. It is further stated that when the respondents tried to dispossess him he filed suit in OS No.152 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007. 3. In this writ petition it is the grievance of the petitioner that he submitted a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 on 16.8.2007 requesting them to sell the aforesaid land to him at the market value. In spite of the same, the respondents are not considering the said representation, but on the other hand, they are trying to alienate the said land in favour of third parties. Petitioner claimed that as he is in possession of the land as a lessee, unless his representation is considered, the respondents should not take any steps for alienation of the aforesaid land in favour of third parties. 4. The 4th respondent i.e. Tahsildar, Kalyandurg MandaI and the 3rd respondent - temple have filed separate counters. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that the temple is endowed with the land in Sy.No.430-2 admeasuring Acs:6-71 cents, in Sy.No.430-3 admeasuring Acs.6-59 cents and out of the same, some portions were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation was paid to the temple. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that the temple is endowed with the land in Sy.No.430-2 admeasuring Acs:6-71 cents, in Sy.No.430-3 admeasuring Acs.6-59 cents and out of the same, some portions were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation was paid to the temple. It is stated that out of the remaining land of Acs.9.09 cents, an extent of Acs.8-66 cents was acquired in the year 1999 for providing house sites and the .same was delivered possession to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalyandurg in the yea\" 1999 itself and an amount of Rs.69,230/-was received by the temple towards part of the compensation. It is further stated that after issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and after payment of part compensation, award was not passed. While admitting that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed, it is stated that in the suit filed by the temple for recovery of arrears, the matter was settled in Lok Adalat for a sum of Rs.11,100/- and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/towards arrears of rent on 13.9.2004 and further amounts are due from him. In a tabular form the arrears are shown at Rs.1,86,995/-. The counter filed by the fourth respondent - Tahsildar is also in the similar lines. 6. In this case, it is to be noticed that though the petitioner is claiming lease by way of succession from his late father, but in view of the provisions under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1987 any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stands cancelled. In view of the said provision, by operation of law, all the leases, which are not granted by religious institutions in favour of landless poor persons stand cancelled. In that view of the matter, unless there is a declaration from the competent authority notifying that the petitioner is a landless poor person, as per the explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act, petitioner cannot claim any preferential right for selling the land in his favour on market value. In that view of the matter, unless there is a declaration from the competent authority notifying that the petitioner is a landless poor person, as per the explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act, petitioner cannot claim any preferential right for selling the land in his favour on market value. In any event, as the land is belonging to the temple, petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek direction for alienation of the aforesaid land in his favour merely claiming that he continued in possession of the said land by virtue of lease granted in favour of his late father. 7. With regard to the decree obtained by the petitioner as well as the third respondent-temple, it is open for the parties to take steps to enforce them. But at the same time, in view of the cancellation of lease by operation of law, no direction can be granted as prayed for in this writ petition to consider the representation dated 16.8.2007 made by the petitioner for alienation of the land in his favour; while keeping it open to the respondents to take steps for recovery of arrears, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.