Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 138 (AP)

Annavarapu Asirvadam v. Prl Secy Endowments Hyd

2025-01-24

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER : As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.47 of 2015 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, all petitioners are Land Less Poor persons and their elders were given lease hold rights by the then management of the 4th respondent temple. Since then i.e., for the past 60 years, their families have been cultivating the lands belonging to the 4th respondent temple for their livelihood. This fact is not disputed by the authorities. Due to poverty and illiteracy the petitioners’ elders have not availed the benefit given under Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987. Some of the petitioners herein were served with Form-I notice in the year 2003. Aggrieved with the same, they have filed WP No.15752 of 2003 before the composite High Court at Hyderabad and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Section 82 of the Act. Till the decision is taken, status quo was also ordered. In pursuance of the same, the officers took details from the petitioners with a letter to extend the benefit under Section 82 of the Act declaring the petitioners as landless poor persons. But no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Accordingly, the petitioners made several requests. Though the petitioners are entitled to purchase the land which they have hold and cultivate as stipulated under Section 82 of the Act, to protect their continuous possession they were forced to participate in public auction conducted by the 4 th respondent temple for every 3 years. All the years the petitioners are participating in auctions and they were also extended the lease period for 2013-2014 on condition of giving 23 bags of rice per Acre and accordingly the petitioners have given the same and sought for further extension. All the years the petitioners are participating in auctions and they were also extended the lease period for 2013-2014 on condition of giving 23 bags of rice per Acre and accordingly the petitioners have given the same and sought for further extension. While the matter stood thus, surprisingly the authorities have issued proceedings vide L.DS.No.2/14931/2014, dated 28.06.2014 rejecting the request of the petitioners and further directing the 4 th respondent to conduct public auction as per G.O.Ms.No379 dated 11.03.2003, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition. 4. This Court, vide order, dated 07.01.2015,in WP No.47 of 2015, has granted status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties, for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the same is being extended from time to time. 5. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioners in W.P.No.47 of 2015, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in other writ petitions i.e., WP Nos.7666 of 2015 and 19483 of 2014. 6. The counter affidavits have been filed in all the Writ Petitions. 7. In the Counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent in WP No.47 of 2015, while denying all the allegations made in the petitions, inter alia, it is stated that, the Executive officer of the 4 th respondent temple issued notification dated 30.06.2014 for conducting of public auction of the lease hold rights of wet land in various survey numbers of Mannava Village admeasuring Ac. 19.85 cents in 14 bits and the auction was scheduled to be held on 14.07.2014 and 15.07.2014. Questioning the said auction notice, the petitioners herein approached this Hon'ble High Court by way of W.P.No.19483/2014 claiming that they are small farmers under entitled for protection under Section 82(2) of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 30/1987, but this Court vide W.P.M.P.No.24392/2014 in W.P.No.19483/2014 dated 14.07.2014 directed the petitioners to make an application in terms of Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dt.11.03.2003, for being declared as small farmers and on such receipt of applications, he 3 rd respondent shall consider the same within 2 weeks thereafter in accordance with law and pass a reasonable order either granting or refusing to grant the status of small farmers. While the auction may go on and be finalized, the petitioners shall not be disentitled to all such rights, which accrue to a small farmer, in case they are so declared, merely because they have been dispossessed from the subject lands in the interregnum. Grant of lease hold rights, pursuant to the auction, shall be subject to further orders in this W.P.M.P. The petitioners may also participate in the auction without prejudice to their rights either to be declared as small farmers in terms of the Rules, or to claim the benefit, which the small farmers are entitled to, under Section 82(2) of the Act. This auction for the lands is conducted on 14.07.2014 and 15.07.2014 with 38 persons have signed the auction conditions and 32 of them have paid the initial deposit of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioners also have participated in the auction. The auction was contested by the rival groups offering the bid amount to Rs.1,40,000/- per acre on an average. There one particular bit admeasuring Ac. 1.00 cents described as Plot No.181 in the auction notice, which was offered an amount of Rs.5,01,000/- by one Sri Bandlamudi Chimpiraiah. In respect of Plot No.180, the amount offered was Rs.3,01,000/- The said auction result was vetoed by the Commissioner of Endowments, in Rc.no.M2/1439/2014 Dt.12.09.2014. As the auction was contested beyond the reality. Therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in the Appeal Nos.02 to 15 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2014, and also there are no merits in the writ petition and hence it is is liable to be dismissed. 8. The 4 th respondent has also filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petitions and submits that, since the Commissioner, Endowments Department issued Memo in Rc.No.M2/14931/2014 dated 12.09.2014 vetoing the auction and directed the Executive Officer of the temple to conduct fresh action, by forfeiting EMD Accounts. It is stated that the writ petition in WP No.26826/2014 was disposed of with a direction not to dispossess the petitioners, pending disposal of the appeal if any preferred before the Regional Joint Commissioner. It is further stated that the Appeal Nos. 2 to 15 of 2014 filed by the petitioners herein were considered after perusing the records and hearing both the parties were rightly dismissed by the 2nd respondent. The orders passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner are valid, true and correct. It is further stated that the Appeal Nos. 2 to 15 of 2014 filed by the petitioners herein were considered after perusing the records and hearing both the parties were rightly dismissed by the 2nd respondent. The orders passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner are valid, true and correct. As the some of the petitioners income is more than statutory limit of Rs. 12,000/- as per their own documents filed before the authority, there are no lease approval orders from the competent authority for continuous 6 years prior to commencement of Act 30/87, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners are not entitled to be declared as landless poor persons and as such, they have no right to continue on the land belonging to the temple. In view of the above circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 10. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petitions, submits that as per Section 82(2) of the Act 30 of 1987 it is clear that the six years period stipulated is not necessarily on the date of commencement of the Act, the plain reading of the provision is not conveying the said meaning therefore the observation made by the 1 st respondent that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in question continuously for a period of six years prior to commencement of the Act is contrary to the said provision. To support his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in Mattaarthi Dharma Rao and Ors. And The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and another, [ 2003(3) A.P.L.J. 1 (HC)] wherein the High Court of Judicature: Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that: “…..Then coming to the contention of the petitioners that for the purpose of determining the holding of the cultivating tenant, the leased land belonging to the Institution/Endowment shall be excluded, it is relevant to note that cancellation of lease under Section 82(1) applies to all leases subsisting as on the date of the commencement of the Act, where the lessee is not a landless poor person. The Explanation to Section 82(2) clearly states that a landless poor person means a person whose total extent of land either as owner or as cultivating tenant or both, does not exceed 2.5 acres of wet or 5 acres of dry land. Thus, there is no ambiguity and there can be no question of interpreting this definition to exclude the land of the Institution held by the petitioners as cultivating tenants….” 11. While relying upon the above decision, learned counsel for the petitioners requests to allow these writ petitions. 12. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavits, submits that the combined reading of Sub Section 1 and 2 of Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987 would envisage teat there must be a lease subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act and such person is possession of the land for a period not less than six years, is alone entitled to claim the benefit there under. Therefore, the orders passed by the 2 nd respondent is legal and warrants no interference and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 13. Perused the material on record. 14. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that the petitioners filed the Appeals before the 2 nd respondent, which are impugned in these writ petitions, wherein, it is observed that,as per Section 82 (2) of Act 30 of 1987, it is clear that the six years period stipulated is not necessarily on the date of commencement of the Act, the plain reading of above provision is not conveying the said meaning therefore the observation made by the 1st respondent that the appellant is not in possession of the land in question continuously for a period of six years prior to commencement of Act is contrary to the said provision. Per contra the counsel for the respondents submitted that combined reading of Sub Section 1 and 2 of Section 82 of Act 30/1987 would envisage that there must be a lease subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act and such person in possession of the land for a period not less than six years, is alone entitled to claim the benefit there under. 15. 15. On an analysis of Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987, extracted below : Section 82 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 82. Lease of Agricultural lands: (1) 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 stand cancelled. (2) In respect of leases of agricultural lands [other than those lands situated in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations] [Inserted by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] held by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person shall have the to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five per centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal instalments in the manner prescribed. Such sale may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public auction : 16. This Court further observed from the material on record that, it is a specific case that the petitioner’s forefathers were inducted into possession of the property 60 years back and they were forced to participate in the public auction conducted by the 2 nd respondent in the years mentioned in the affidavits to protect their possession. It is also clear that there must be a valid lease executed in favour of a person and the said lease shall be subsisting six years continuously prior to commencement of the Act 30 of 1987. 17. It is also to be noted from the Certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponnur, “the petitioners/appellants are having no landed property in Mannava village of Ponnur lMandal. This will not however speak of other landed property if any held by the individual and family member elsewhere i.e., rest of Mannava village. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioners/appellants are not entitled to claim their status as landless poor persons in respect of the land in question and the 1 st respondent rightly rejected their claim under the impugned orders. 18. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioners/appellants are not entitled to claim their status as landless poor persons in respect of the land in question and the 1 st respondent rightly rejected their claim under the impugned orders. 18. This Court further observed that, since 2003, the writ petitioners are agitating the same issue before this Court and approaching the revenue authorities and filed writ petitions before this Court claiming as landless poor persons and that this Court has also considered and directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners as landless poor persons by remanding the matters back to the respondent authorities for examining the issue and pass appropriate reasoned orders. Further, though the respondent authorities while observing the case and legal status of the petitioners, passed reasoned orders, but the petitioners challenging the same on violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India that too not challenging the merits of the case in accordance with law. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels that the 2 nd respondent has passed reasoned orders in all the Appeals filed by the petitioners and warrants no interference. However, if at all any grievance, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the impugned orders on merits. 20. With the above observation, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in all the writ petitions, shall stand closed.