JUDGMENT R Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner is a lessee of the 3rd respondent-temple, over Ac.3.43 cents of land in R.S.No.472 of Vellaturu Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District, for the past few decades. He had earlier been declared as landless Poor Person in accordance with The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act) and The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short "the Rules") by way of proceedings in R.C.No.B1/11440/2003, dated 19.09.2003, issued by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, in the course of review of the said status, the petitioner was again called upon for an enquiry. After the said enquiry, the 2nd respondent by proceedings vide R.C.No.B1/3248/2021-3, dated 18.06.2021, had cancelled the status of the petitioner as landless poor person on the ground that the income certificate produced by the petitioner showed that the income from all sources is Rs.60,000/- per annum, which was in excess of the income limit of Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum, fixed under Section 82 of the Act. It was also held that the petitioner was cultivating Ac.2.88 cents in various survey numbers in the said village which was in his name in the revenue records apart from cultivating the Ac.3.43 cents of land as the lessee of the 3rd respondent temple. 2. Aggrieved by the said proceedings vide R.C.No.B1/3248/2021-3, dated 18.06.202, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said order suffers from two infirmities. 4. Firstly, the explanation to Sec.82(2) of the Act stipulates that the landless poor person would lose that status if his monthly income other than from the lands under his cultivation exceeds Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum. In the present case, the overall income which was shown as Rs.60,000/- does not set out how much of the Rs.60,000/- total income is income obtained from sources other than from the lands under cultivation. In the absence of that exercise, the total income of the petitioner cannot be taken into account, to disqualify him, as a landless poor person. 5. In the absence of that exercise, the total income of the petitioner cannot be taken into account, to disqualify him, as a landless poor person. 5. The 2nd infirmity, according to Sri Kambhampati Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer that he is holding Ac.2.88 cents of land in his personal name, is not correct as he is holding the said land as the Kartha of the joint family and as such, the said extent of land cannot be counted again his holding. In any event, his main contention is that he was not given an opportunity of setting out these facts before the 2nd respondent and that there was a failure of principle of natural justice as he was not given such an opportunity. 6. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent-temple would submit that the Village Revenue Officer's certificate showing that the petitioner was personally holding Ac.2.88 cents was infact submitted by the petitioner himself and as such, the petitioner cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. 7. To clear the aforesaid controversy, the records relating to the proceedings were summoned by this Court. A perusal of the said record does not show as to whether the certificate of the Village Revenue Officer was obtained separately by the 2nd respondent or whether it was furnished by the petitioner himself. 8. 7. To clear the aforesaid controversy, the records relating to the proceedings were summoned by this Court. A perusal of the said record does not show as to whether the certificate of the Village Revenue Officer was obtained separately by the 2nd respondent or whether it was furnished by the petitioner himself. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: i) The proceedings in R.C.No.B1/3248/2021-3, dated 18.06.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent are set-aside; ii) The said proceedings shall be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner; iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to place all relevant material before the 2nd respondent to demonstrate; a) what is his income from the land held by him and the land obtained under lease from the 3rd respondent-temple and what is his other income; iv) The aforesaid material and objections if any, of the petitioner, shall be filed before the 2nd respondent within two weeks from today; v) Upon receipt of the material or on the expiry of two weeks, whichever is earlier, the 2nd respondent shall consider the material available before the 2nd respondent and pass orders afresh on the status of the petitioner as a landless poor person; vi) Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent-temple submits that the auction that was proposed to be held on 01.07.2021 could not be held due to lack of bidders; vii) Any further steps for auction of the lease hold rights of the land of the 3rd respondent shall be dependent upon and shall be taken only after the 2nd respondent determines the "Landless poor person" status of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The original record submitted to this Court can be taken by the learned Government Pleader from the Registry. 11. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.