WP/14239/2003 of M.Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Peerson in Management, on 30 December 2008

ORDER

The petitioner herein claims to be the owner and possessor ofAc.7.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.100 ( Old Sy.No.90) situated inPeddapally village, Sultanabad Taluq, Karimnagar District. It is statedthat the said land was purchased by this father in his name under aregistered sale deed dated.04-12-1958 and since then the same hasbeen in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. It is also claimedthat the petitioner’s vendor was granted permission vide proceedingsdated.08-08-1958 under Section.47 of Hyderabad Tenancy &Agricultural Lands Act,1950 for effecting the sale in favour of thepetitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner’s father while making adeclaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling ofAgricultural Buildings) Act,1973 included the land in question also andafter considering the same the land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli byorder dated.29-11-1975 in C.C.Nos.P/316/75 & P/443/75 held that theland held by the family unit was less than the ceiling area and there wasno excess land. The name of the petitioner was also entered in therevenue records and pattadar pass book was issued in his favour. While so, the 1[st] respondent issued notice dated.20-05-2003 underRule.5(1) of the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act,1987 (for short “the Act”)stating that the lease in respect of agricultural land in respect ofSy.No.100 to an extent of Ac.7.38 guntas stood cancelled with immediate effect and calling upon the petitioner to handover thepossession of the lands leased out to him within a period of thirty(30)days. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed contendinginter alia that the title claimed by the 1[st] respondent is absolutelyfalse and without any basis. It is also contended that since the lands arehis own lands and he has been in continuous possession andenjoyment of the same as a rightful owner since 1958, the impugnednotice issued by the 1[st] respondent alleging that thepetitioner is a lessee and calling upon him to handover the possessionis arbitrary and illegal.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

1[st] respondent claiming that the land in question was donated by SriRaja Murali Manohar Rao to the 1[st] respondent-Institution and thepetitioner appears to have grabbed the land by creating a falsedocument in his favour. It is also pleaded that as per Mutukam (books ofendowments) the lands to an extent of Ac.8.38 guntas in Sy.No.100 andanother extent of Ac.1.20 guntas and Ac.2.00 in Sy.Nos.708 and 525situated in Peddapalli were shown as lands belonging to the 1[st]respondent-Institution. While disputing the ownership claimed by thepetitioner, it is contended that the possession of the petitioner is illegaland therefore he shall be deemed to be an encroacher under theprovisions of the Act. It is also contended that in view of the efficaciousremedy available under Section.87 of the Act for adjudication of the titleclaimed by the petitioner, the present writ petition cannot be maintained.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

As could be seen, there is a serious dispute with regard to title inrespect of the land in question. Whereas the petitioner claims that it ishis own land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed,the 1[st] respondent contends that the said land belongs to the 1[st]respondent-Institution by virtue of a gift made by Sri Raja Murali Manohar Rao. It is also alleged by the 1[st] respondent that the petitioner is an encroacher. If that be so the 1[st] respondent-Institution could havetaken appropriate steps as provided under Sections.83 and 84 of the Actfor removal of the alleged encroachments and for recovery of thepossession. Instead the 1[st] respondent issued the impugned noticeunder Rule.5(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions &Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules,2003 made underG.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue(Endowments-I) Department dated.11-03-2003informing the petitioner that the lease held by him stood cancelled byvirtue of Section.82(1) of the Act and calling upon him to hand over thepossession forthwith. As per Section.82 of the Act any lease ofagricultural land belonging to an Endowment or Institution subsisting onthe date of commencement of the Act and held by a person who is not alandless poor shall stand cancelled. Sub-section.(2) of Section.82 of theAct provides for continuation of lease or sale in favour of the tenants whoare landless poor persons subject to the terms and conditions specifiedthereunder. The procedure to be followed for implementation of the saidprovisions has been prescribed in the Rules made underG.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11.03.2003.

Conclusion

Rule.5 of the Rules states that a notice in Form No.1 annexed tothe said Rules shall be issued to the cultivating tenant who is not alandless poor person duly informing that the lease held by him stoodcancelled by virtue of the provision in Section.82(1) of the Act andcalling upon him to handover the vacant possession. Thus it is clearthat the issuance of notice under Rule.5 of the Rules made underG.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11.03.2003 can be issued only to a lessee inwhose favour a lease of agricultural land belonging to the Institution orEndowment was subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act. Inthe case on hand the specific case of the 1[st] respondent-Institution as pleaded in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner is anencroacher of the land belonging to the Institution. No where it is stated that the petitioner is a lessee and the lease is subsisting as on the dateof commencement of the Act.

In the circumstances I find force in the submission of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that Section.82 of the Act has no application atall. Consequently the impugned notice issued under Rule.5 of the Rulesmade under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11.03.2003 calling upon thepetitioner to handover the vacant possession of the land in question isillegal and unsustainable. As already expressed above if the petitioneris an encroacher, it is for the 1[st] respondent to takeappropriate steps as provided under the Act for removal of theencroachment and for recovery of the vacant possession but it is notopen to recover the possession by issuing a notice under Rule.5 of theRules.

Accordingly the impugned notice is hereby set aside and the writpetition is allowed. However, it is made clear that this Court has notexpressed any opinion as to the rival claims made by the petitioner andthe 1[st] respondent-Institution with regard to the title in respect of the landin question. No costs.

_____________

G.ROHINI,J