Judgment : Writ Petition No. 11424 of 2010 is filed by one Duvvur Niranjan Reddy seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent, namely the Executive Officer, Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple, Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, in auctioning the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.7-75 cents in Survey Nos. 203, 204 and 205 situate at Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, scheduled to be held on 19-05-2010 at 10-00 am or thereafter, as per the notice dated 05-05-2010, as illegal. Writ Petition No. 30936 of 2013 has been filed by one Sri B. Seenaiah, seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 2nd respondent, namely, Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple, represented by its Executive Officer, Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, in auctioning the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.6-38 cents in Survey No.207 situate at Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, pursuant to the notice dated 24-10-2013, by auctions to be held on 06-11-2013 at 10-00 am or subsequently, as illegal. The petitioner in the first writ petition has claimed that land of an extent of Ac.7-75 cents situate in Survey Nos. 203, 204 and 205 situate at Brahmadevam Village belonging to Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple in the village was leased out to him as early as in the year 1995 and he has been cultivating the said land as a lessee by paying the Maktha to the 1st respondent temple every year. It was claimed by him that the lease has been extended from time to time, but however, the 1st respondent has issued notice on 05-05-2010 proposing to grant the licence to cultivate the land in question by way of a public auction to be held on 19-05-2010. Hence, he instituted the said writ petition challenging the validity of the notice. So far as the petitioner in the second writ petition is concerned, it is his case that land of an extent of Ac.6-38 cents in Survey No. 207 situate at Brahmadevam Village belonging to Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple has been leased out to his fore-fathers long back. Hence, he instituted the said writ petition challenging the validity of the notice. So far as the petitioner in the second writ petition is concerned, it is his case that land of an extent of Ac.6-38 cents in Survey No. 207 situate at Brahmadevam Village belonging to Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple has been leased out to his fore-fathers long back. They have been cultivating the said land from a very very long time and that he has been paying the annual Maktha at Rs.59,000/- to the said Devasthanam and in spite of his prompt payment of Maktha, the Devasthanam has taken out a notification on 24-10-2013, proposing to grant licence for cultivating this very land, by public auction, for a period of three years, commencing from 2013-2014 and hence, this writ petition has been instituted. In both the cases, the respective petitioner set out that as per Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’), the leases held by landless poor persons are saved from cancellation and that the State Government has formulated a scheme through their G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments) Department, dated 11-03-2003, indicating the procedure to be followed for the purpose of determining the status of a landless poor person. The case of the petitioners is that without following the procedure, the respondents are proceeding further in the matter by proposing to conduct the necessary auctions. It will be relevant to notice Sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act, which reads as under: “Any lease of agricultural land belonging to 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.” So long as they are not held by a landless poor person, the purpose and intent of this Provision is to cancel all leases, which are subsisting as on the date when the provision has been brought into force, excepting such leases, which are held by the landless poor persons. Sub-section (2) confers certain advantages upon landless poor persons. Sub-section (2) confers certain advantages upon landless poor persons. It provided a landless poor person, who held lands for not less than six years continuously, to have the right of first purchase and also for a consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value of similarly-situated lands at the time of purchase and further the said consideration of 75% shall be paid in four equal installments in the manner prescribed. Further, such a sale can be affected by the Institution other than by public auction. Therefore, for availing benefits prescribed under Sub-section (2), the basic requirement is that the lease of the land must be held by a landless poor person, at least, for a continuous period of six years. The Proviso added to Sub-section (2) also conferred a benefit on the landless poor person - lessee to continue as a tenant in the land if he agrees to pay at least two-third of the market rent, which was paid for similarly-placed lands, as lease amount. The Explanation reads as under: “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 properties.” Thus, a ‘landless poor person’ is defined as a person, whose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed an extent of two and half acres of wet land or five acres of dry land and whose monthly income, other than from such land, does not exceed Rs.1,000/- per mensum or Rs.12,000/- per annum. In other words, if the lease itself is granted for wet land of two and half acres or dry land of five acres of extent, he cannot be construed or considered as a landless poor person, even if he does not own any land at all. In other words, if the lease itself is granted for wet land of two and half acres or dry land of five acres of extent, he cannot be construed or considered as a landless poor person, even if he does not own any land at all. In the instant case, the petitioners in both the cases have been granted leasehold rights over land of an extent of Ac.7-75 cents and Ac.6-38 cents respectively. Even if these lands are construed to be dry lands, since, their extent has exceeded five acres limit, both the petitioners cannot be construed as landless poor persons. When once the respective petitioners in both the cases cannot be construed as landless poor persons, the lease said to have been held by them stood terminated by virtue of the provisions contained under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. Thus, there is no subsisting lease in favour of the petitioners. There is no denial or dispute with regard to the fact that the lands in question belong to the temple. When once a public auction is conducted and the best bidder thereat has been granted the necessary permission to cultivate the land, what, in effect and substance, is granted to such an individual is the right to cultivate the said land, subject to the stipulations or conditions contained in such a grant by the temple. In effect and in substance, it is a licence to cultivate the land in question. The distinction, in principle, between a ‘licence’ and a ‘lease’ lies in the fact that in case of licence, the true owner or the member is always construed as holding possession of the land and the grantee will not be construed as a trespasser so long as the conditions and stipulations are honoured and complied with by him. Thus, the right of the grantee to enter upon the land and put it to agricultural operations is beyond any question. When once the grant expired by virtue of efflux of time as stipulated in the grant itself or by its termination brought about in accordance with the terms of the grant, in such cases also, the grantee ceases to have any possession over the land in question. When once the grant expired by virtue of efflux of time as stipulated in the grant itself or by its termination brought about in accordance with the terms of the grant, in such cases also, the grantee ceases to have any possession over the land in question. He cannot, thereafter, enter upon the land and deal with it for any purpose including agricultural operations (since, I had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in JASTI VENKATESWARA RAO v. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYAWADA (ALD-2011-6-582). Hence, all such grantees of right to cultivate agricultural lands belonging to a temple or endowment or any institution, cease to have any right to enter upon said lands after the period of grant expires or the grant gets terminated and any such activity of theirs will fall foul of law and is liable to be frowned upon. Hence, the temple authorities are at liberty to grant the necessary right for the further period in accordance with law. However, it shall be open to them to permit the previous grantee also to participate in an auction, provided he satisfies the stipulations or conditions contained therein. In the instant case, the leases granted earlier in favour of the petitioners have been terminated by virtue of the operation of the Provisions contained under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. The petitioners now have no manner of any right. They are bound not to carry on any agricultural operations therein. Further, the Governor of the Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003, exercising the power available to him under sub-section (1) of Section 82 read with Section 153 of the Act and got these Rules notified through G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments) Department, dated 11-03-2003. Rule 3(1) thereof makes it clear that immediately after the Rules came into force, if any cultivating tenant claims to be a landless poor person, the Assistant Commissioner, having territorial jurisdiction, shall inquire into and decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person or not, as defined under Section 82 of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant as well as to the executive authority of the Institution concerned. Sub-rule (2) thereof makes it abundantly clear that if the cultivating tenant does not claim to be a landless poor person or if the Assistant Commissioner concerned determined that the cultivating tenant is not a landless poor person, the tenancy will be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from 28th May 1987 and the cultivating tenant shall be regarded as a tenant holding over thereafter. Thus, since, these Rules have been first published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 13-03-2003, the petitioners are required to make applications for recognition as landless poor persons immediately thereafter. Since, the petitioners have not filed any applications seeking determination of their status as landless poor persons, the question of application of the Rules itself in their case would not arise. Even otherwise, as already noticed supra, the petitioners, by virtue of the sweep of Section 82 of the Act, cannot even be declared as landless poor persons. Hence, there is no way that the petitioners can insist that they shall be permitted to continue to carry on the agricultural operations of the lands belonging to the temple. A right of seeking permission for any grant cannot lie contrary to the requirements of the Statute itself. I do not find any merit in both these writ petitions and therefore, they are dismissed at the stage of admission, but however, without costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any in both the writ petitions, shall also stand dismissed. Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments Department on usual terms.