ORDER 1. The petitioner is a cultivating tenant of land measuring Acs.2.22 cents situated in Sy.No.189/2 of Athmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, belonging to Sri Laxminarasimhaswamy Temple, Mangalagiri. She has been found to be "landless poor person" for the purpose of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 vide proceedings, dated 06-11-2003 in Rc.No.A5/ 6014/2003 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. She submitted an application, dated 02-09-2002 expressing her desire to purchase the said land as per the provisions of Section 82 (2) of the Act. The said application was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for approval. The Deputy Commissioner called for the proposals from the Executive Officer vide Orders, dated 19-09-2002 in that regard. In the meanwhile, Notice under Rule 5 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules, 2003 was issued calling for her option to continue as tenant or to purchase the land in terms of Section 82 of the Act. The petitioner states that she exercised the option for purchasing the land and accordingly submitted a representation, dated 15-02-2004. No final decision appears to have been taken in that regard. In the meanwhile, the State Government, the 1st Respondent herein, issued proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.519, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, dated 03-08-2004 deciding to acquire the land to provide house sites to the needy people of an association, subject, however, to the condition of the Collector depositing market value of the land in the temple account before issue of house site pattas. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the said G.O. with a further prayer to direct the respondents to sell the land in her favour in pursuance of the Notice, dated 04-02-2004. 2. Heard Sri B. Sashibhushan Rao, representing Sri N. Gurugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for Respondent Nos. l to 3 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel for Respondent No.4. 3. The impugned order of the State Government is challenged on the ground that the State Government is not authorized to acquire the land by issuing an executive order. According to the petitioner, if at all the land is required for any public purpose, the same has to the acquired only under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but not otherwise. 4. According to the petitioner, if at all the land is required for any public purpose, the same has to the acquired only under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but not otherwise. 4. The learned Government Pleader would, on the other hand, contend that proposal to acquire the land is mooted in public interest. According to him, the land is required to provide house sites to the needy people of Mangalagiri Mahila Sankshema Sangham, which is a public purpose and there is nothing illegal in taking the land on payment of market value to the temple. 5. It is not in dispute that the subject land belongs to the 4th Respondent-Temple, which is a juristic person. It does not require reiteration of the constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. It is well settled that the term "law" in the context of Article 300-A means an Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, a rule, or a statutory order; having the force of law ( 1982 (1) SCC 39 ). It is not pointed out as to the source of power of the Government in acquiring the land by issuing the impugned G.O. No property can be acquired by an executive order even if it is traceable to Article 162 of the Constitution. Viewed from this angle, the orders issued by the State Government in the instant case cannot be construed as an order having statutory force. In case the Government thought it fit to acquire the land, it could, lave done so by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or by permitting sale under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Clearly the impugned order, which is not traceable to any statutory provision of law, is ultra vires of the powers of the State Government. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, being a landless poor person, is entitled to purchase the said land under the provisions of Section 82 (2) of the Act. He would therefore contend that having issued the Notice to the petitioner calling her option for the purchase, respondent, cannot be permitted to resile from the same. 7. He would therefore contend that having issued the Notice to the petitioner calling her option for the purchase, respondent, cannot be permitted to resile from the same. 7. The learned standing counsel, however, contend that though option was called for from the petitioner, no final decision has been taken to sell the land in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, the temple is not willing to sell away the land. It is submitted that the petitioner, though a landless poor person, is not entitled to compel the temple to sell away the land. 8. It is true that under Section 82 (2) of the Act, the rights of "landless poor person", who is a tenant, are protected. Such a person has a right to purchase the land or in the alternative to continue as tenant on certain conditions. However, such a right to purchase the land would accrue only in case the land is sought to be alienated/sold by the institution. If the institution does not wish to alienate, the tenant has no right to compel the institution to part away with the land. 9. In the result, the order of the State Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.519, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, dated 03-08-2004 is set aside, however, holding further that the petitioner is not entitled for sale of land as sought for by her in the Writ Petition. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 11. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. Nos.22588 and 22589 of 2004 are disposed of as unnecessary.