G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a writ of Mandamus filed by 20 petitioners under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying to issue a direction to the respondents not to evict them from the lands of the 2nd respondent in which they are in possession as cultivating tenants and to strike down section 6 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 27 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as act 27 of 2002 for the sake of brevity) and Section 3 of the A. P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act no. 28 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as act 28 of 2002) as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are briefly as follows: ( 3 ) THE second respondent is a charitable institution. It is the absolute owner of ac. 119-84 cents of land situated in Virivada village and Ac. 2-24 cents in fakruddinpalem Village of Pithapuram mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners and their predecessors have been continuing as cultivating tenants for the said land of an extent of Ac. 122-08 cents for the last several decades. In the year 1958 a registered lease deed covered by document no. 820 of 1958 dated 26-4-1958 was taken from the petitioners and or the predecessors in interest belonging to 16 families. By virtue of the provisions of the A. P. (Andhra Area) tenancy Act, 1956 ( the Principal Act for brevity) and the Amended Act 30 of 1974 they became statutory tenants. By virtue of section 10 of the Amended Act 30 of 1974, which came into force on 1-7-1980, their tenancy became perpetual. While so, the a. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 ( 1966 Act for brevity) was repealed and the new Act of 1987 came into force on 28-5-1987 and in the new Act, for cancellation of all leases of agricultural lands belonging to or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act, Section 82 (1) was introduced. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of section 82 of the said Act. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of section 82 of the said Act. A learned single judge of this Court struck down Sec. 82 (2) of the Endowments Act, 1987. A Division bench of this Court through its judgment dated 3-10-1989 struck down the entire section 82 holding that the provisions incorporated therein are violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The State of andhra Pradesh carried the matter to hon ble Supreme Court of India. A Division bench of the Supreme Court in State of andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Kami Reddy reversed the Division Bench judgment of this Court and upheld the validity of Sec. 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987. The petitioners further pleaded that the Supreme court while upholding the validity of section 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987 observed as follows:. . . that the undertaking given to the court while the writ proceedings were pending, no steps would be taken for evicting the tenants holding the lands at present, until appropriate Rules are framed shall be binding on the appellants and will hold good even now. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the first respondent brought out two amendments to Section 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987 viz. , Act 27 of 2002 and Sections 16 and 18 of the Tenancy act i. e. , Act 28 of 2002. The two amendments made to the two enactments offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they are violative of equality clause and equal protection of laws. They also discriminate between same class of tenants who are all conferred permanent tenancy rights long back in 1980. Hence, the amendments have to be declared as unconstitutional and are liable to be struck down. ( 5 ) THE first respondent filed a counter-affidavit resisting the writ petition and the averments of the counter-affidavit are briefly as under: ( 6 ) IN the State of Andhra Pradesh many religious institutions possess extensive landed properties. . Those lands are leased- out to various tenants. Most of the religious institutions are depending upon the income from the lands. In many cases, the lands were leased-out for lower rents and in view of the provisions of the tenancy laws, the managements could not take any steps either to enhance the rents or to evict the tenants. . Those lands are leased- out to various tenants. Most of the religious institutions are depending upon the income from the lands. In many cases, the lands were leased-out for lower rents and in view of the provisions of the tenancy laws, the managements could not take any steps either to enhance the rents or to evict the tenants. Almost in many cases the rents were also not being paid properly. Consequently the temples and other charitable institutions and endowments become handicapped and could not discharge their functions. The Government of Andhra Pradesh while taking note of the above circumstances introduced the endowments Act of 1987 with a view to confer power of cancellation of leases under section 82 of the said Act. When the validity of Section 82 was questioned, the Supreme court upheld its validity by holding that the classification of tenants of the lands held by religious and charitable institutions and endowments and other lands is permissible under law. The Supreme Court rejected all the contentions raised by the tenants and they are once again putting forward all those contentions before this Court and there is no legal basis for the petitioners to challenge the said provision of, law. The respondents did not admit the petitioners claim that they and their predecessors have been the tenants of the second respondent since several decades and their leases stood cancelled by the operation of Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987. Therefore, the duration of their possession is of no consequence. By virtue of operation of Section 82 the petitioners are no longer entitled to squat on the lands. The petitioners are not small farmers. Therefore, they cannot espouse the cause of others. The petitioners are challenging only the element of retrospectivity of Section 18 of the Principal act on the ground of arbitrariness. This section operates whether it is retrospective or not; The petitioners are paying rent @ rs. 191-60 ps. per acre, while the second respondent has to pay Rs. 200/- per acre towards land revenue. This is a clear indication as to how these petitioners and others are exploiting the religious endowments and charitable institutions. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs. 191-60 ps. per acre, while the second respondent has to pay Rs. 200/- per acre towards land revenue. This is a clear indication as to how these petitioners and others are exploiting the religious endowments and charitable institutions. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 7 ) THE second respondent filed a counter with the following averments in brief: ( 8 ) THE second respondent is a charitable institution established with the motivation of a Philanthropist, M. Satya Lingam Nayaar in 1912. It is a religious institution registered under the A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Endowments Act. Presently an executive Officer and a Trust Board are administering it. In 1958 a lease was granted for an extent of Ac. 122-08 cents of land to 16 persons, including petitioners 1 and 2 herein. The lease-deed, which was given by the private management, was an imprudent transaction. The petitioners are continuing as tenants holding-over without any. extension of lease or execution of any document. By virtue of the latest amendment of the Principal Act and the endowments Act, 1987, the lease stood cancelled. The petitioners have no legal right to continue as tenants, the lands in question are valuable wetlands receiving water supply from established water sources, two crops are being raised on the lands. The commercial crops like Sugarcane and banana plantation are being grown on these lands. The current market value of the land per acre exceeds Rs. 2. 5 lakhs. The petitioners are paying rent which is less than the land revenue being paid by the Trust, being the original land owner. The whole arrangement is a mockery and the attempts of the trust to enhance the rentals have been frustrated by the petitioners by filing various petitions in the High Court. The petitioners are abusing the legal process to the detriment of the Trust. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE petitioners filed a reply affidavitt on the counters of. the respondents 1 and 2 and once again repeated the averments of the petition. They, however, took a plea for the first time that they are small farmers. ( 10 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the second respondent is the absolute owner of the disputed lands. It is also an undisputed fact that the lands were in the hands of tenants who are paying rs. 196-60 ps. They, however, took a plea for the first time that they are small farmers. ( 10 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the second respondent is the absolute owner of the disputed lands. It is also an undisputed fact that the lands were in the hands of tenants who are paying rs. 196-60 ps. towards rent per acre which was the amount mentioned in the lease deeds in the year 1958. The religious endowments and charitable institutions have reached such a pathetic stage which led to a situation of making the people working under those institutions to starve and they are unable to offer Dhoopa, Deepa and naivedyam to the deities in those institutions. The income is being eaten away by the tenants without fear of God and they are economically becoming rich at the cost of religious endowments and charitable institutions. The Government could not improve the situation under the 1966 Act, despite its best efforts to augment the funds by way of collecting more rents from the tenants. Therefore, the Government of andhra Pradesh appointed a Commission headed by Sri Justice Challa Kondaiah, former Chief Justice of this Court, and the said Commission in para 1. 18. 1 of its report mentioned as under: it is stated that all concerned who are interested in the charitable or religious institutions have stated that the temple authorities are facing innumerable difficulties in the management of the landed properties of the institutions, the income is very meager, not worth mentioning, and in some cases it is nil, although the institution owns large extent of lands. Reasons thereof are the provisions of the Tenancy Act, attitude of the persons in possession and enjoyment for several years, the lands belonging to these institutions are mostly in the hands of the rich and powerful sections against whom the authorities concerned are experiencing difficulties to dispossess them from the lands . The trustees or archakas are in enjoyment of the lands kept benami in the names of their relations etc. The authorities also are in collusion with them. The rents paid by the tenants are nominal, fixed decades back. The estimates Committee also expressed the same opinion. The trustees or archakas are in enjoyment of the lands kept benami in the names of their relations etc. The authorities also are in collusion with them. The rents paid by the tenants are nominal, fixed decades back. The estimates Committee also expressed the same opinion. ( 11 ) IN pursuance of the recommendations of the said Commission, the Endowments act, 1987 was brought into force with the following Statement of Objects and Reasons: a provision is also made to terminate the leases held by persons other than landless poor persons and to enable landless poor persons to purchase the lands held by them on lease. ( 12 ) SECTION 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987 has the effect of cancelling of lease of agricultural lands belonging to the institutions subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act notwithstanding any other law in force. However, such cancellation will not affect leases held by landless poor persons. It was also provided in the Act that in respect of leases covered by landless poor persons for not less than six years continuously such persons are given the right to purchase such land on payment of 75% of prevailing market value being payable in four equal instalments, as may be prescribed. If, however, such landless poor persons fail to purchase the land as aforesaid or are unwilling to purchase the land, the lease shall be deemed to have been terminated. When validity of Section 87 of the Endowments Act, 1987 was challenged, the Supreme Court held that the said provision is not offending Article 14 of the constitution India and accordingly held that section valid. \ ( 13 ) SUBSEQUENT to the judgment of the Supreme Court, amendments were brought to Section 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987 through Amendment Act No. 27 of 2002. Section 6 of the amended Act reads as follows: 6. Amendment of Section 82:- In section 82 of the Principal Act, (i) in sub-section (2), for the proviso and the Explanation thereof, the following shall be substituted, namely: "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. " ( 14 ) WE have already mentioned that by virtue of Section 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987, all leases of agricultural lands of religious endowments and charitable institutions stood cancelled, but in order to avoid hardship to the small farmers, there was a direction to offer the land to the said tenants for sale for three-fourth of the market value payable in installments. The amendment to sub-section (2) of Section 82 further provides that if such small and marginal farmers, who are not able to purchase the land, will continue as tenants, provided if they agreed to pay at least two- third of the market rate for similarly placed lands as lease amount. The explanation to the said clause also defined "landless poor person". ( 15 ) SECTION 2 (ii) of the Amended Act mandates that the provisions of the Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (Principal Act) and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 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 the act. The amendments to the Principal Act (Act 18 of 1956) are as follows: in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) tenancy Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the Principal Act) (1) In Section 16 of the Principal Act, in sub-section (1) the proviso shall be omitted. (2) In Section 18 of the Principal Act (i) in sub-section (1) after Clause (e) the following shall be deemed always to have been added namely: (f) to any agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or Hindu Religious institutions or endowment as defined by the provisions of the andhra Pradesh charitable and religious Institutions and endowments Act. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tenancy Act which deals with lease of agricultural lands did not make any distinction between any agricultural lands belonging to individuals and those belonging to charitable and religious institutions and endowments with regard to conferring of benefits like making the tenancy in perpetuity, making them heritable by lineal descendants, continuity of tenancy in case of change of ownership, resumption of possession of land leased by a landlord for his personal cultivation, termination of tenancy, surrender of holding by cultivating tenant, cultivating tenants right to first purchase the land leased to him etc. The learned counsel further contended that while enacting Tenancy Act, the legislature thought that the tenants of individuals as well as religious endowments form one class. The learned counsel also contended that no classification of agricultural leases through out the State belonging to all individuals and charitable and religious institutions is made in the tenancy Act. Although the religious endowments form a class by themselves, the agricultural lands belonging to them and tenants of those lands cannot form a separate class even considering the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that as Section 82 cancelled all the agricultural leases subsisting at the commencement of the Act 30 of 1987, it clearly violated the equality clause of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further contended that the leases of agricultural lands belonging to the charitable and religious institutions cannot be singled out without considering all the provisions of the Tenancy Act, which is a beneficial legislation and one enacted as per the recommendations of the Planning commission keeping in view the objects mentioned in Article 39 (b) and (c) of the constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that since the petitioners were conferred rights of tenancy in perpetuity, which is a vested right, such vested right conferred in 1980 cannot be taken away as it made heritable for the progeny of original tenants, and these demised lands are the source of their living. ( 17 ) ALL the above arguments were advanced before the Hon ble Supreme court in Nallamilli Rami Reddy (1 supra) and the Hon ble Supreme Court categorically held that Section 82 is valid and not violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of india. ( 17 ) ALL the above arguments were advanced before the Hon ble Supreme court in Nallamilli Rami Reddy (1 supra) and the Hon ble Supreme Court categorically held that Section 82 is valid and not violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of india. In the said judgment the Supreme court further observed that Section 82 does not result in any hostile discrimination against any group and that the cancellation of leases under Section 82 would not achieve the objectives of the Act. The Supreme Court further held that Article 14 of the constitution prohibits "class legislation" not "classification legislation for the purpose of legislation". It was further held that as long as classification is not patently arbitrary, it would be justified. The Supreme Court further clarified that if due to fortuitous circumstances, some individuals within a class gain an advantage over others, but, on the whole, there is equality and uniformity in each group and so long as they are not singled out for special treatment, the law provided for the classification would not become discriminatory. The Supreme Court while upholding the classification made an observation in para 12 of the judgment, 12. It is plain that religious institutions fall into a separate class and lands held by them have a special character in respect of which tenancies had been created and these tenancies are sought to be put to an end to for resumption of lands for better management thereof. It is clear that the tenants under the religious institutions form a special class by themselves and such classification is made, so far as tenants are concerned, to achieve the object of protecting the interests of the religious institutions. Therefore, we do not think, any of the principles, which result in hostile discrimination, would be applicable to the present case. ( 18 ) REGARDING the objection of the petitioners for cancellation of leases and amendment to the provisions of the Tenancy act, the observatioaof the Supreme Court in para 15 (5) is the answer, which reads as follows: it is a matter of policy with the legislature as to whether all provisions of the ienancy Acts should be exempt in its application to the charitable or religuous institution or endowment in their entirety. There is no need to further elaborate on this issue, in the light of the finding of the supreme Court, referred supra. There is no need to further elaborate on this issue, in the light of the finding of the supreme Court, referred supra. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the supreme Court in P. V. M. R. D. lyengar v. Govt. of A. P. wherein the Supreme Court while considering the validity of Section 76 of the Endowments Act, 1987 held as follows: without amending the law under Inam abolition Act and without properly removing the foundation of the judgments rendered by the High Court under said Act, the legislature sought to destroy the effect of the law in Inam abolition Act or erroneous belief or assumption that it did not bind the religions or charitable institutions or endowment or that the holder of land did not acquire title or no patta was granted to him and the land was still with the institution and treated the occupant as encroacher. The legislation founded on such an erroneous assumption does not have the effect of depriving the holder of the land of their vested rights acquired under the inams Abolition Act. The legislature has plainly misfired. Thus Section 76 and Explanation II to Section 2 (22) of the Act to that extent would be invalid and unconstitutional. (para 16) ( 20 ) THE principle laid down in the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala which relates to the applicability of the amended provision of the Land Acquisition Act wherein the Supreme Court held that though a new Act was made amending the principal Act, and yet, its respective character need not extend to the proceedings pending prior to the date of commencement of the amending Act. The Courts have undoubtedly laid very strongly against applying a new Act to pending action, when the language of the statute does not compel them to do so. ( 22 ) THE principle laid down in the above case is also not applicable to the case on hand. ( 23 ) IN Narinder Chand v. U. T. Him. The Courts have undoubtedly laid very strongly against applying a new Act to pending action, when the language of the statute does not compel them to do so. ( 22 ) THE principle laid down in the above case is also not applicable to the case on hand. ( 23 ) IN Narinder Chand v. U. T. Him. Pra the Supreme Court held that unless the executive is specifically empowered by law to give any exemption, it cannot say that it will not enforce the law as against a particular person. The Supreme Court further held that no court can issue a mandate to a legislature or a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it was competent to enact. ( 24 ) SINCE the classification of the tenancy of agricultural lands of the religious endowments and charitable institutions is held valid by the Supreme Court in nallamilli Kami Reddi (1 supra) and as the new proviso to Section 82 was introduced with a view to give further opportunity to the landless poor, who could not purchase the lands, fixing the rent at two-third of the market rate for similarly placed lands as lease amount, is a matter of policy, and it cannot be held arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioners by gaining an impression that they have to pay two- third of the gross produce are raising hue and cry when the small farmers are directed to pay two-third of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount. It is an open secret that the tenants of private lands are paying half of the gross produce as rent to the private landlords. There should not be any grievance to the petitioners to pay two-third of the rent that is being paid by the private tenants to private landlords and it cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. It may be difficult for the petitioners who are in the habit of paying rs. 196-60 ps. per acre per annum to swallow, but such practice of eating away the entire income of the lands of the charitable institutions shall not be allowed to continue any more and the institutions shall not be made to starve at the comfort of the tenants of agricultural lands. 196-60 ps. per acre per annum to swallow, but such practice of eating away the entire income of the lands of the charitable institutions shall not be allowed to continue any more and the institutions shall not be made to starve at the comfort of the tenants of agricultural lands. The petitioners who are far from reasonableness in their attitude should not be encouraged to deprive the institutions of their legitimate right of getting the income from their lands, by standing on technicalities. The lease in favour of the petitioners stood extinguished by operation of law, which was held valid by the Apex Court have to go only for the other remedies available under the Act. Despite the power conferred under the provisions of the new statutes, if the concerned authorities are not allowed to implement those provisions, there will be no scope for the institutions to revive their financial status and to survive in achieving its objects. The petitioners who are so generous in sacrificing less than rs. 24,000/- per annum towards rent for ac. 122-00 of land for the last 45 years have to pay the price! under the amended provisions of the Act. They are only 20 in number. Though they are mentioning that there are more number of persons as tenants of these lands, nothing prevented others also to join chorus with the petitioners. The petitioners are not supposed to espouse the cause of the remaining tenants who are landed rich. Since the petitioners have no legal right to continue as tenants, by virtue of operation of Section 82 of the endowments Act, 1987, there cannot be any direction either to treat them as tenants or to allow them to continue as such. In the light of the validation of Section 82 of the endowments Act, 1987, the framers, with a view to rule out any possibility of inconsistency with the provisions of the tenancy Act, brought Act No. 28 of 2002 i. e. , a. P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002. It is in consonance with the spirit of Sec. 82. Even if the amendment to Tenancy Act is not given any retrospective effect, it is not going to affect the validity of Section 82. We therefore hold that the provisions of the amended Acts are not arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, they are not liable to be struck down. It is in consonance with the spirit of Sec. 82. Even if the amendment to Tenancy Act is not given any retrospective effect, it is not going to affect the validity of Section 82. We therefore hold that the provisions of the amended Acts are not arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, they are not liable to be struck down. We therefore hold that they are not violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and we hold them valid. ( 25 ) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs