Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 130 (AP)

K. Raghuram Reddy v. Single Trustee

2004-02-05

V.V.S.RAO

body2004
( 1 ) THE petitioner is tenant of agricultural wet land admeasuring Acs. 9. 74 situated at Minagallu Village, Nellore District. The land belongs to Sri Vinayakaswamy Temple, respondent herein. The single trustee of the respondent Temple issued auction notice proposing to sell an extent of Acs. 3. 45 wetland in S. no. 7a and Acs. 0. 90 out of Acs. 4. 12 wetland in S. No. 8 proposing to conduct auction on 6. 2. 2004 at 10. 00 a. m. to lease out for a period of three years. This notice is assailed in the Writ Petition. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K. Srinivas is that the petitioner is a marginal farmer and therefore he is entitled to the benefit under Sec. 82 (2) of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the Act ). He placed strong reliance on Pavulluri Ramaiah v. State of A. P. 1, and a recent unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12649 of 2003 and batch, dt. 12. 8. 2003. ( 3 ) AFTER the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A. P. v. NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI (1989 (1) APLI 138), Sec. 82 of Act has become enforceable as its validity was upheld. As per Sub-sec (1) of Sec. 82 of the Act an agricultural lease by religious institution in favour of any person stands cancelled. However, by reason of Sec. (2) thereof, if the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person for not less that six years continuously, such person is given right to purchase the land for consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value as and when the Temple decides to sell the land. If a cultivating tenant is not able to purchase the land, he has to be continued as tenant if he agrees to pay at least 2/3rd of market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount. Explanation to sub sec. (2) defines landless poor person and reads as under: 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. 01,1715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2. Explanation to sub sec. (2) defines landless poor person and reads as under: 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. 01,1715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2. 02,3430 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. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel also submits that as per proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec. 82 of the Act every small and marginal farmer has to be continued as tenant if he agrees to pay at least two third of rent as lease amount. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in PAVULURI RAMAIAHS CASE (supra) was carried in appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge. The matter was carried to Supreme Court by the State. The Supreme Court in NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDIS CASE (supra) while reversing the judgment of the High Court, on the question of landless poor person observed as under: ( 5 ) SO far as the validity of Sec. 82 (1) in classifying the landless poor persons is concerned, the High Court felt that the provisions themselves are inconsistent and that the illustration given by them, to which reference has already been made earlier, will show how discrimination will result. It is settled law that it is open to the legislature to state as to who should be exempted from the application of the law and, in the present case, there is a definition of landless poor person whose total extent to land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed two-and-half acres of wetland or five acres of dry land having been identified as landless poor person and he is enabled to purchase the land at 75% of the prevailing market value by paying in four equal installments as may be provided under the Rules. Thereafter, that aspect of saving the small landholders cannot be objected to nor can the meaning of landless poor person be enlarged, as has been sought to be done by the learned Single Judge. If, however the said landless poor persons are not willing to purchase the land or fail to purchase such land, the lease would lapse. This latter provision cannot be held to be inconsistent with the earlier provisions as has been held by the High Court because that is inconsistent with the earlier provisions as has been held by the High Court because that is a consequence flowing from the fact that such landless poor person is either not anxious to purchase the land or fails to do so. The validity of an enactment cannot be judged by fortuitous circumstances arising out of peculiar circumstances. Therefore, that reasoning of the Division Bench is also faulty. (emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) THE learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12649 of 2003 and batch, dt. 12. 8. 2003, wherein this Court while considering the effect of proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 82 of the Act, in the background of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in NAMMILLI RAMI REDDIS CASE (supra) observed as under. ( 7 ) THUS, it is clear that the legislature intended to exempt small and marginal farmers as well, from the application of the law and to give them an option to purchase the lands or to continue as tenants subject to compliance with the conditions specified thereunder. It is true that the proviso cannot be treated as an independent provision, but keeping in view the object of the Amendment Act as reflected in the statement of objects and reasons, I am of the view that the amended proviso cannot be ignored nor the expression small and marginal farmer can be understood as per the definition of landless poor person in the Explanation to Sec. 82 (2 ). If small and marginal farmers are equated to landless poor persons the proviso as amended by Act 27/2002 itself becomes meaningless. It is well-settled principle of interpretation of statues that no part of the statute should be regarded as superfluous. It is always open to the legislature to precisely define who is a small farmer and who is marginal farmer. If small and marginal farmers are equated to landless poor persons the proviso as amended by Act 27/2002 itself becomes meaningless. It is well-settled principle of interpretation of statues that no part of the statute should be regarded as superfluous. It is always open to the legislature to precisely define who is a small farmer and who is marginal farmer. But the cultivating tenants cannot be deprived of the benefit sought to be conferred on them under the statute, merely on the ground that the expression small and marginal farmer is not defined under the Act or the Rules. ( 8 ) THIS Court categorically laid down that the expression small and marginal farmers in proviso to sub-sec (2) of Sec. 82 of the Act has to be understood as per the definition of landless poor person in the explanation to sub-section (2) to sec. 82. The observations of this Court as above have to be understood keeping in view the declaration by Honble Supreme Court in NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDIS CASE (supra ). Reading all sub-sections together, I am not able to countenance the submission that even marginal farmers are entitled to the benefit under sec. 82 (2) of the Act. The benefit is conferred by the Statute only on the landless poor persons, who in a given case can also be small farmers and marginal farmers. Any other view would render sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 82 of the Act a nulity defeating the very object of the Legislature. The petitioner is a cultivating tenant of agricultural wetland admeasuring Acs. 9. 74 as seen from auction notice. Therefore, he is into entitled to any benefit. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petition that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agriculture Land Rules, 2003, cannot be accepted as petitioner is not landless poor person within the meaning of explanation to sub-section (2) Sec. 82 of the Act and no determination is necessary. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.