JUDGMENT : SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. The present Writ Appeals are arising out of a Common Order dated 02.07.2021 passed in W.P. Nos. 13459 of 2020 and 12767 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge, and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellants/petitioners came up before the learned Single Judge stating that the lands bearing survey Nos. 87 and 106 situated at Narayankhed Village, Medak, Sanga Reddy District are under the ownership of Sri Rama Mandir temple, apart from other properties situated in survey Nos. 23, 87, 94 and 106 of the same village. It was further stated that the land admeasuring Acs. 27.16 guntas in survey No. 87 and Acs. 5.23 guntas in survey No. 106 were leased out to the grandfather of the third petitioner, D.Gopal Reddy, in the year 1948. It is also an undisputed fact that the land in dispute is Devalam Patta in the name of Sri Ramdev Temple of Lord Rama. In 1971, vide order, dated 10.06.1971, the Tahsildar directed the Revenue Inspector to take possession of the lands in survey Nos. 87 and 106 totalling to Acs. 32.39 guntas and the first writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 2059 of 1971 was filed at that point of time and the same was allowed on 05.12.1972 on a limited point that the Tahsildar has no power to evict the tenants of the temple lands. 3. The appellants/petitioners contended that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (‘Endowments Act’ for brevity) came into force and Section 82 of the Endowments Act provides a method and manner for dealing with the agricultural lands. Section 82 provides that all leases of agricultural lands stood cancelled and the land cultivated by landless poor persons for not less than six years continuously, such persons shall have the right to purchase the lands at 75% of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands by paying sale consideration in four equal instalments. The Rules were also framed and the appellants/petitioners submitted a representation on 31.05.2003 stating that they are poor persons/marginal farmers. The Rules were also framed and the appellants/petitioners submitted a representation on 31.05.2003 stating that they are poor persons/marginal farmers. An order was passed on 28.06.2003 rejecting their claim holding that the successors of Mogul Reddy do not fall within the definition of landless poor person and again a writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 15895 of 2003 was filed and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to continue the petitioners as tenants and if they are willing to pay 2/3rd of the market rental value as rent and in case, the temple decides to sell the lands, preference has to be given to the tenants. The grievance of the appellants/petitioners is that without taking into consideration the claim of the appellants/petitioners, the lands have been subjected to auction by issuing auction notice on 05.05.2021 and in those circumstances, the appellants/petitioners came up before this Court. 4. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as well as Sri Ram Mandir Temple (Devasthanam) before the learned Single Judge stating that the lands exclusively belong to the temple and the ancestors of the appellants/petitioners used to cultivate the subject lands without paying any amount to the Endowments Department. The appellants/petitioners do not have any lease granted under the statutory provisions of the Telangana State Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules, 2003 (Rules, 2003, for brevity). It was further stated that efforts were made to auction the land in the year 2003 and the claim of the appellants/petitioners was turned down in 2003 itself by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and the possession of the lands has already been taken back by the Endowments Department. 5. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the Endowments Act provides that the persons who are having less than Acs. 2½ of land are landless poor persons and undisputedly the appellants/petitioners are having more than Acs. 2½ of land. The learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that the appellants/petitioners have also participated in the process of auction and as the bid offered by them was not the highest bid, their claim has been dismissed. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced as under: “8. 2½ of land. The learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that the appellants/petitioners have also participated in the process of auction and as the bid offered by them was not the highest bid, their claim has been dismissed. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced as under: “8. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the temple lands and cultivating the same by paying lease amount in respect of the said land for time immemorial. The petitioners have not filed any documents in support of their contention with regard to the lease and its terms and conditions and valid period and to establish their right upon the temple land and in support of their claim and locus, no primary document is placed on record. They are only making claims on the secondary documents like correspondence and Court orders, which are not sufficient to hold that the petitioners as having legally enforceable right on temple lands. Per contra, the respondents contended that petitioners are paying a minimal amount in few thousands and now when the lease is put to auction and it fetches Rs. 5,00,000/- and the petitioners are not landless poor. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Medak, Sanga Reddy District holding that the petitioners are not landless poor has become final. As per Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the persons who are having less than Ac. 2.00 are landless poor, but the petitioners are holding more than Ac. 2.00 of land and therefore, the contention of the petitioners is not sustainable. All of them belong to one family and even married daughters also claiming the temple land as landless poor is highly objectionable as the same is not recognized under the Act. 9. The petitioners have not filed any documentary proof to show that they are paying lease amount as per latest market value to the temple management committee without making the temple to face loss and hardship. The interest of temple and its properties is paramount importance and the same is protected by putting the lease in public auction. 9. The petitioners have not filed any documentary proof to show that they are paying lease amount as per latest market value to the temple management committee without making the temple to face loss and hardship. The interest of temple and its properties is paramount importance and the same is protected by putting the lease in public auction. This Court granted liberty to the petitioners to participate in the auction and submit their bid and after declaring them as successful bidders they can continue as lease holders, but they cannot obstruct the respondents in conducting auction of the temple lands. At that juncture, the petitioners also participated in the auction and bid for less amount and the highest bid was more than Rs. 5,00,000/- as stated supra. The other issues regarding allegations against local leaders, already an F.I.R. is registered by concerned Station House Officer upon the complaint of the petitioners and the same will be taken care of as per law and there is no need to go into other disputed facts. The main issue this Court felt like considering the petitioners as landless poor and putting the temple lands for auction is already answered. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable and the same are liable to be dismissed.” 6. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and perused the record. 7. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that Sri Ramdev Temple of Lord Rama is the title holder of the land bearing survey Nos. 23, 87, 94 and 106 situated at Narayankhed Village, Medak, Sanga Reddy District. As per the contention of the appellants/petitioners, they were in possession of the subject lands to the extent of Acs. 32.39 guntas. The respondents herein took possession of the lands in the year 1971 and at that point of time, a writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 2059 of 1971 was filed and only because the Tahsildar was taking action, the writ petition was allowed holding that the Tahsildar has no power to evict the appellants/petitioners from the endowment lands. After the enactment of the Endowments Act, all temple leases stood cancelled and a procedure was provided for disposal of the temple property. Section 82 of the Endowments Act reads as under: “82. After the enactment of the Endowments Act, all temple leases stood cancelled and a procedure was provided for disposal of the temple property. Section 82 of the Endowments Act reads as under: “82. Lease of agricultural lands: (1) Any lease of agricultural land belonging to lease of Agricultural Lands, 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. (2) In respect of leases of agricultural lands other than those lands situated in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations held by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously such person shall have the right to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five per-centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal installments in the manner prescribed. Such sale may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public auction: Provided that if such small and marginal farmers who are not able to purchase the land will continue as tenants provided, if they agree to pay at least two third of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount. Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-section ‘landless poor person’ means a person whose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other than from such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential property exceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property. However, those of the tenants who own residential property exceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property. Explanation II: For the purpose of this subsection, small and marginal farmer means a person who being a lessee is holding lands in excess of acres 0.25 cents of wet land or acres 0.50 cents of dry land over and above the ceiling limits of acres 2.50 wet or acres 5.00 dry land respectively they may be allowed to continue in lease subject to payment of 2/3rd of prevailing market rent and excess land held if any more than the above limits shall be put in public auction. (3) The authority to sanction the lease or license in respect of any property or any right or interest thereon belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment, the manner in which and the period for which such lease or license shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Every lease or license of any immovable property, other than the agricultural land belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment subsisting on the date of the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force subject to the rules as may be prescribed under sub-section (3). (5) The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XVII of 1956) and the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950) shall not apply to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institutions or endowment as defined in this Act.” 8. The facts further reveal that the appellants/petitioners are not landless persons at all. They are holding more than Acs. 2½ of land. The writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 15985 of 2003 was disposed of in the light of the order passed in another case in W.P. No. 12649 of 2003 and the order passed is reproduced as under: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Institutions/Endowments and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. 2½ of land. The writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 15985 of 2003 was disposed of in the light of the order passed in another case in W.P. No. 12649 of 2003 and the order passed is reproduced as under: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Institutions/Endowments and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. It is represented by both the learned counsel that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. 12649/2003 and batch dated 12.8.2003 wherein it is held that a cultivating tenant who claims to be a landless poor is entitled to continue in possession of the leased land held by him till his status is determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments having territorial jurisdiction. The batch of writ petitions is disposed of with the following directions: “1. The petitioners are granted liberty to make an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments having territorial jurisdiction with all relevant material to support their plea that they are landless poor persons/small farmers/marginal farmers within three weeks from today. On such application being made the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments shall make necessary enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the Executive Authority of the concerned institution/Endowment and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. 2. If no such claim is made within three weeks from today, it is open to the institutions/Endowments to proceed with the further steps in pursuance of the impugned notices issued in Form-I under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. However, if there is any standing crop on the land in question the respondents may consider the request of the cultivating tenants to permit them to continue in possession till the crop is harvested, subject to furnishing an undertaking by the cultivating tenant that they would hand over peaceful possession within the time mutually agreed. 3. However, if there is any standing crop on the land in question the respondents may consider the request of the cultivating tenants to permit them to continue in possession till the crop is harvested, subject to furnishing an undertaking by the cultivating tenant that they would hand over peaceful possession within the time mutually agreed. 3. Where an application is made by the petitioners within three weeks from today till appropriate orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner determining the status of the cultivating tenant and till the 30 days time prescribed for preferring appeal under Rule 4 of the Rules is expired the impugned notice issued in Form-I under Rule 5(1) of the Rules shall not be given effect to and till such time all the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo obtaining as on today as to the possession of the land in question, subject to payment of rents payable regularly. 4. If any of the petitioners already made claim that he is a landless poor person, such claim shall be considered by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. Where there is already a determination by the concerned Assistant Commissioner as to the status of the cultivating tenant, if they are aggrieved by the said determination, it is open to them to prefer appeal under Rule-4, if not already preferred. Such appeal shall be disposed of by the Regional Joint Commissioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 4 weeks, taking into consideration to the entire evidence available and after affording an opportunity to both the parties. 6. If any auction in respect of the leasehold rights of the land in question is held in the meantime, the same shall not be confirmed till the exercise of the determination of the status of the petitioner and the thirty days time prescribed for preferring appeal under Rule 4 is expired. 7. 6. If any auction in respect of the leasehold rights of the land in question is held in the meantime, the same shall not be confirmed till the exercise of the determination of the status of the petitioner and the thirty days time prescribed for preferring appeal under Rule 4 is expired. 7. Wherever the cultivating tenants are determined to be the landless poor/small farmers/marginal farmers they shall be continued as tenants provided if they agree to pay at least 2/3rd of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount, it is also made clear that whenever the institution/Endowment proposes to sell the said land following the procedure prescribed under the Act, an option shall be given to such cultivating tenant who is determined to be landless poor/small farmer/marginal farmer to purchase the said land in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision in W.P. No. 12649/2003 and batch. No costs.” 9. It is pertinent to note that the claim of the appellants/petitioners was turned down and auction notice was issued on 05.05.2021. A writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 12306 of 2021 was preferred challenging the aforesaid auction notice in respect of the same land and the learned Single Judge, as the notice was not issued in consonance with Rule 11 of the 2003 Rules, has set aside the auction notice and paragraphs 5 to 9 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under: “5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent does not seriously dispute the applicability of the above rules to the auction to be conducted. 6. Rule 11 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003, deals with Publication of Auction Notice. While dealing with the manner and method of such publication, the Rule clearly specifies that the notice of auction shall be published at least 10 days prior to the date fixed for auction, by affixture. Since, in the facts of the present case, the public notice issued by the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent Temple is dated 05.05.2021 and the auction is scheduled to be held on 10.05.2021, the proposed auction is in clear violation of Rule 11 of the “Rules” and the same cannot be sustained. 7. Since, in the facts of the present case, the public notice issued by the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent Temple is dated 05.05.2021 and the auction is scheduled to be held on 10.05.2021, the proposed auction is in clear violation of Rule 11 of the “Rules” and the same cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned public notice dated 05.05.2021 issued by the 5th respondent through its executive officer, scheduling the public auction on 10.05.2021 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. 8. However, it is open for the 5th respondent to issue fresh public notice by adhering to the provisions of the “The Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987” and “Rules” relating to the public auction of such endowed properties. The petitioners are also at liberty to question the same if they are aggrieved by any such fresh public notice. 9. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is Allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending stand closed.” 10. Thereafter, a fresh auction notice was issued and the appellants/petitioners as well as the other persons have participated in the process of auction. The appellants/petitioners, who have participated in the auction, have not offered highest bid and therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. 11. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Medak, Sanga Reddy has passed an order holding that the appellants/petitioners are not landless poor persons and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has become final and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, keeping in view Section 82 of Endowments Act, the land can be allotted to the appellants/petitioners and therefore, the learned Single Judge, as the appellants/petitioners have failed to establish their right of allotment of land in terms of Section 82 of the Endowments Act, and also as the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has become final, was justified in dismissing the writ petitions. 12. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. 13. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.