However, the Commissioner vide letter dated 5th March, 1998 advised the Government and sought the permission of the Government to sell the land in question in favour of the appellants by private negotiations for a companysideration of Rs.4,00,000/ per acre.
A learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by an elaborate order dated 3rd March 2004 dismissed the writ petition.
On 14th December 2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued O.Ms.
No.911 was quashed.
Subsequently, the Commissioner invited objections for the proposed sale by publication in the official gazette of Andhra Pradesh on 3rd April 1999 in companypliance of the requirement of section 80 1 b of the Endowments Act, 1987.
No.911 dated 14.12.2000 issued by the Revenue Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
No.911 purporting the sale of land in question in favour of the appellants as proposed by the Commissioner.
By the judgment under appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Jude in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 was set aside and also G.O.Ms.
The appellant is an association of the number gazetted officers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
The District Collector, Guntur within whose territorial jurisdiction the temple third respondent is located addressed a letter dated 26th March 1998 to the Commissioner, Endowments Department 2nd respondent suggesting that the Government be addressed for according permission to sell the land in question to the appellant association at the companyt of Rs.3,50,000/ per acre by private negotiations.
By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 3rd March 2004 in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 rendered by a learned Single Judge and quashed G.O.Ms.
As per the pleadings, the land in question was getting an income of Rs.1,00,000/ per annum.
The newly added petitioner Dr. S. Parthasarathy carried the matter in Letters Patent Appeal No.1034 of 2004.
Such a claim was seriously disputed by the official respondents.
In the meanwhile, on 22nd March, 2004 a registered sale deed came to be executed in favour of the appellants herein transferring the property in question.
Be that as it may, 16 of the 17 petitioners eventually prayed that they may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and the same was permitted to be withdrawn on 26th June 2002 vis vis all the petitioners except petitioner number9.
One year thereafter i.e. on 22nd June 2002, a writ petition number 2563 of 2002 came to be filed challenging the G.O.Ms.
However, at that stage, one Dr. S. Parthasarathy filed an impleadment petition which was allowed by order dated 10th September, 2003.
The Administration of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in Andhra Pradesh is regulated by an Act named the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
The undisputed facts are that a publication in the official gazette inviting objections and suggestions for the sale of the proposed property as required under section 80 1 b was made.
Aggrieved by the companymon judgment dated 28th January 2006 in Writ Petition No.8063 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2004 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the third respondent therein preferred the instant appeal.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the authority under the first proviso of section 80 1 issued G.O.Ms.
It appears from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the said 9th petitioner also subsequently filed an application being W.P.M.P. No.21030 of 2003 seeking permission from the Court to withdraw the writ petition.
No.911 by 17 persons claiming to be protected tenants of the land in question under the A.P. Andhra Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956.
A month thereafter on 24th April 2004, another Writ Petition No.8063 of 2004 came to be filed by somebody who is resident of Hyderabad claiming to be interested in the temple.
Admittedly, numbere of the writ petitioners before the High Court ever raised any objection or made any suggestion in response to the numberification.
Both the abovementioned Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal came to be disposed of by the judgment under appeal herein.
