Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1253 (AP)

Darapaneni Subbulu, W/o Nagayya v. State of A. P.

2024-08-30

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : This writ petition is filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction (i) declaring the action of the respondents taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac 5. 00 situated in Sy No 374 of Thimidithapadu of Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and in contravention of Rule 3 of A.P. charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules 2003 (ii) to declare the proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent Assistant commissioner cancelling the small farmers certificate issued in favour of the petitioners husband is in contravention of the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 and 5 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.3.2003 (iii) to declare the action of the Respondents taking steps to evict the Petitioner is in contravention of the procedure contemplated under Sections 82, 83( 4) 84 and 85 of the Endowments Act (iv) to declare the 5th respondent is not competent to issue notice and issuance of such notice by the 5th Respondent is in contravention of Rule 3 and 5 of the Lease Rules and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the proceedings in Rc No A9/2624/2016 dated 14.6.2016 and consequential conduct of auction, as illegal and pass ….…” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband by name D. Nagaiah is the tenant of the subject land situated in Sy.No.374 to an extent of Ac 5.00 belongs to Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple or the last several decades. After his demise, the petitioner is paying the lease amount and paid the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 way back on 5.4.2016. Even after collecting the lease amount for the next agricultural year by the 4th respondent, high handedly sought to conduct a public auction of the lease hold rights. After his demise, the petitioner is paying the lease amount and paid the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 way back on 5.4.2016. Even after collecting the lease amount for the next agricultural year by the 4th respondent, high handedly sought to conduct a public auction of the lease hold rights. Accordingly, the petitioner along with similarly situated farmers filed writ petitions before this Court seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus insisting to vacate the respective agricultural lands pursuant to notice dated 18.4.2016 issued by the 6th respondent without deciding their clients as a small farmers though they submitted an explanation on 21.5.2016 and the same were disposed of vide order dated 14.6.2016 directing the respondents not to dispossess without passing final orders pursuant to Notice dated 18.4.2016. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband Nagaiah was declared as a small farmer after due enquiry by the 4th respondent by an order dated 4.9.2013. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in conducting the auction of lease hold rights of the lands situated in Sy.No.374 to an extent of Ac. 5.00 of dry land under the possession of the petitioner, though the petitioner’s husband was declared as small farmer vide proceedings in Rc.No. B4/3635/2003, dated 4-9-2003. Once the petitioner was declared as a small farmer in terms of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Lease of Agricultural land) Rules, 2003, and having collected the lease amount of for the year, 2016-17 the respondents are disentitled to come to the conclusion without issuing notice. Basing on the report said to have been submitted by the 4th respondent, ignoring the certificate which was issued by the Revenue Officer stating no land has been recorded in the petitioner’s name, the petitioner is landless poor person and her annual income is about 15,000/-. It is further stated that the petitioner’s husband D. Nagaiah is the tenant of the land situated in Sy.No.374 to an extent of Ac. 5.00 belongs to Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple for the last several decades. After the petitioner’s husband demise, the petitioner is paying the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 and that the respondents are disentitled to evict the petitioner after collecting the lease amount. 5.00 belongs to Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple for the last several decades. After the petitioner’s husband demise, the petitioner is paying the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 and that the respondents are disentitled to evict the petitioner after collecting the lease amount. Even though the petitioner submitted explanation, without considering the same, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 14.6.2016. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. This Court vide order dated 3.8.2016 in WPMP No.31965 of 2016 has granted interim direction that the respondents are hereby directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question until further orders. 5. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the then E.O of the Temple issued notice on 18.4.2016 to the petitioner to produce the income certificate, particular of the lands owned by her and Aadhar Card etc. within 15 days besides informing them if failed the lands will be placed in P.A for lease. The petitioner failed to submit the particular. As such the E.O., the 3rd respondent submitted report to the 2nd respondent obtained instruction to place the lands in public auction. The then E.O has conducted public auction for the very same land in the year 2016. Her grandson byname Dilip Raj participated in the auction and became the higher bidder for Rs.2,25,000/- per annum and paid only Rs.70,000/-. But the lease was not confirmed due to the interim orders granted by this Court. It is further stated that the provisions of the Act to declare the petitioner as land less poor, she is not a valid tenant of the land in question prior to 6 years from the date of commencement of the Act.30/87. After the death of her husband she is only entitled to continue the lease only till the expiry of the lease period. This Hon'ble Court in number of orders held that the land less poor person lease is not heritable. It is further stated that the petitioner has not obtained any approvals of lease from the competent authority after expiry of lease 2009. The husband of the petitioner expired in the year 2008. Hence she is not entitled for declaration of small farmer. 6. It is further stated that the petitioner has not obtained any approvals of lease from the competent authority after expiry of lease 2009. The husband of the petitioner expired in the year 2008. Hence she is not entitled for declaration of small farmer. 6. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Smt. P.Padmavathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.425 dated 9.11.2015 it is mandatory for the respondent authorities to determine the status ‘landless poor/small farmers’ before passing orders for eviction. Learned counsel mainly contended that, the petitioner has submitted all the documents to the 5th respondent and fact remains the notice is required to be issued by the 4th respondent to the landless poor persons and the executive authority as per Rule 3 of the Rules. But the procedure was not followed, simply notice is said to have been issued through 5th respondent itself is in contravention of the Rules. The Rule 3(1) clearly indicates, after giving reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the Executive Officer, the same shall be determined the impugned proceedings dated 14.6.2016 clearly indicates no notice has been given as per the reference indicates except stating based on the report and letter addressed by the Executive Officer of the concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the consequential proceedings which were issued by the 5th respondent also indicates as the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner directed to conduct auction is going to be conducted on 117.7.2016 but at no point of time, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered either by the Assistant Commissioner or by the Executive Authority in terms of the order passed by this Court. He further submits that without any notice to the petitioner, the auction was conducted. The successful bidder was also failed to pay the bid amount and till today the petitioner’s possession was not disturbed. As no notice has been issued, the petitioner raised crop and paid the lease amount for 2016-17 also. So the respondents are disentitled to evict the petitioner after collecting the lease amount. The successful bidder was also failed to pay the bid amount and till today the petitioner’s possession was not disturbed. As no notice has been issued, the petitioner raised crop and paid the lease amount for 2016-17 also. So the respondents are disentitled to evict the petitioner after collecting the lease amount. He further submits that, in spite of the order passed by this Court, the auction was held on 11.7.2016 without obtaining permission from the competent authority and also without any supervision of any authorized representative of the endowment department. He further submits that as the auction purchaser did not deposit the bid amount within stipulated time, the respondents taking steps to conduct auction again. He further submits that as the lease amount was collected even prior to the conducting the auction the respondents are disentitled to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. Therefore, learned counsel requested to pass appropriate orders. 9. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents also reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit. It is mainly contended that as per the provisions of the Act to declare the petitioner as landless poor, she is not a valid tenant of the land in question prior to 6years from the date of commencement of the Act 30/1987. Further, after demise of her husband, she is only entitled to continue the lease only till the expiry of the lease period. It is further stated that the petitioner has not obtained any approvals of lease from the competent authority after expiry of lease 2009 and her husband was expired in the year 2008 therefore she is not entitled for declaration of small farmer. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. On perusing the material on record, it is observed that, the petitioner is small farmer cultivating small extent of land belonging to the 5th respondent temple in Sy.No.374 of Thimidipadu village, Karamcehdu Mandal of Prakasam District. Further, in pursuance of the notice dated 18.4.2016 seeking to furnish details of Aadhar card, ration card and income certificate etc. to justify that the petitioner is continue to be a landless poor person/small farmer, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with supporting documents. However, the respondent authorities have issued proceedings dated 14.6.2016 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 11. to justify that the petitioner is continue to be a landless poor person/small farmer, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with supporting documents. However, the respondent authorities have issued proceedings dated 14.6.2016 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Rule 3 of the Lease of Agricultural Land Rules 2003, if a cultivating tenant claims to be a landless poor person, the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction. On enquiry, whether cultivating tenant is a landless poor person as defined under Section 82. The Rule 3(1) clearly indicates, after giving reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the Executive Officer, the same shall be determined the impugned proceedings dated 14.6.2016 which clearly indicates that no notice has been given as per the reference indicate except stating that based on the report and letter addressed by the Executive Officer of the concerned. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Executive Officer of the Institution is one of the persons who are required to be had along with small farmers as per the rules. On such, the question arose for consideration is whether the Executive Officer who is the opponent as per Rule 3 and issued notice to provide material to substantiate whether the particular tenant is a small farmer or not itself is bad and in contravention of the Rules of Agricutlral Lands lease. This Court further observed that, as no notice has been issued, the petitioner raised crop and paid the lease amount for 2016-17 also. Further, after demise of her husband, the petitioner was allowed to be continued as a tenant since 2009 by increasing the lease amount 1/3rd of the amount which is being paid and that the 5th respondent ahs also collected a sum of Rs.52,000/- on 5./4.2016 itself even prior to issuance of notice and that the 2nd respondent simply issued impugned order dated 14.6.2016 stating that earlier declaration of small farmers are hereby cancelled. 13. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to disposed of the writ petition, while declaring the action of the respondents taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land as illegal and in contravention of Rule 3 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Lease of Agricultural Land) Rules 2003 and also declaring the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A9/2624/2016, dated 14.06.2016 are hereby set aside. Further, if at all, the respondents intend to take further action, they have to follow Rule 3(1) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Lease of Agricultural Land) Rules 2003. Till then, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.