WP/11408/1999 of YA.YADAGIRI Vs THE VC AND MD. APSHWCSL. HYD on 10 December 1999

ORDER:

The petitioner herein claims to be the cultivating tenant of theland to an extent of Ac.0.84 cents situated in R.S.No.176 of Jujjivaramvillage, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District belonging to the fourthrespondent-temple. It is stated that pursuant to the notice issued bythe Executive Officer of the fourth respondent-temple, dated 17-05-2005, calling upon the petitioner to handover the possession of theland in question within 30 days, the petitioner made an applicationbefore the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments seeking adeclaration that he is a landless poor person and therefore, entitled tothe benefit under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ( for short ‘Act30 of 1987’). The Assistant Commissioner, after conducting dueenquiry, passed an order dated 28-07-2006 holding that the petitioneris not a landless poor person as claimed by him. Aggrieved by thesame, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Regional JointCommissioner-second respondent herein. The said appeal wasdismissed by order dated 20-03-2007. In pursuance thereof, the fourthrespondent issued the impugned auction notice dated 05-05-2007 proposing to conduct auction on 30-05-2007 for grant ofleasehold rights of the land in question. Hence, this writ petitionseeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 2 and 3 inholding that the petitioner is not a landless poor person and theconsequential action of the fourth respondentinissuing the auctionnotice dated 05-05-2007 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and the Rules framed underG.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11-03-2003.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusedthe material on record.

At the outset, it is to be noted that though the petitioner has beenin possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.84 cents of dry land belonging tothe fourth respondent-temple, there is absolutely no material to showthat there was any valid lease in his favour prior to commencement ofAct 30 of 1987.

As held by this Court in V.V. Krsihna Reddy v.

Ramalingeswara Swamy Devasthanam[[1]], a plain reading ofSection 82 of Act 30 of 1987 shows that the expression “cultivatingtenant” refers to a person cultivating the land in question lawfully afterobtaining the lease in accordance with law.

In the case on hand a finding of fact has been recorded by thesecond respondent that the petitioner was never granted a valid leaseand much less there was any approval by the competent authority asrequired under law. May be that the rents deposited by the petitionerwere received by the Executive Authority of the temple, however thatby itself does not confer any rights of tenancy on the petitioner.

It is also relevant to note that under sub-section (2) of Section 82,it is also necessary for the cultivating tenant who is a landless poorperson to establish that he has been holding the land in question notless than six years continuously by the date of commencement of Act30 of 1987. The respondents 1 and 2, on appreciation of the materialproduced by the petitioner, recorded a concurrent finding of fact thatthe petitioner failed to establish that he has acquired the land inquestion prior to six years of commencement of Act 30 of 1987 under avalid lease.

In the circumstances, the mere fact that he is in possession ofless than the prescribed limit of Ac.5.00 of dry land is of noconsequence and the respondents cannot be said to have committedany error in proposing to auction the leasehold rights of the land in question.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Nocosts.

Conclusion

Date: 11-06-2007KLP

_______________G. ROHINI, J.

[1]2007(1) ALD 262