WP/10851/2006 of Godavarthi Sri Hari, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Assistant on 26 December 2006

Conclusion

ORDER:

The second respondent-Devasthanam notified a public auctionfor grant of leasehold rights of its lands in an extent of Ac.1.90 cents inTaamarada, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. The Writ Petition assails the notification.

The petitioner claims to be the lessee of the land in question. Itis admitted that the land belongs to the second respondent-Devasthanam. The petitioner states that he is paying the leaseamount as determined by the second respondent from time to timewithout any arrears.

The petitioner also admits that the second respondent gotissued a notice under Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of AgriculturalLands Rules, 2003 (the Rules) on 25.02.2005, that the petitioner’slease stood determined and he should hand over the possession ofthe leased property to the second respondent, failing which, he wouldbe evicted invoking the process under Sections 83 to 86 of the AndhraPradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and EndowmentsAct, 1987 (the Act) treating him as an encroacher, in an order passedunder Section 83 (4) of the Act. The petitioner got issued a replythrough his lawyer to the notice under Form No.1 on 22.04.2005,claiming to be a landless poor person. The reply sent on behalf of the petitioner, dated 22.04.2005, is silent as to the manner, circumstancesand instruments by which he became a lessee in the first instance, theperiod for which a formal lease was entered into or renewed from timeto time, as the case may be, and as to all other facts, which permit anascertainment of the petitioner’s status as a lawful tenant, the durationof the tenancy and the current position.

The petitioner sent up another representation on 16.08.2005 tothe second respondent reiterating the same facts and soughtdeclaration as a landless poor person.

Even in the Writ Petition, the petitioner does not plead any factsas to when he was granted a lease of the Endowment Lands in the firstinstance, the period for which the lease was given, when thecompetent authority approved the lease, whether the lease wasgranted after a process of public auction as required under the Rules,and any other facts which permit an inference that the petitioner is alawful cultivating tenant of the lands in question.

Endowment agricultural Lands and the grant of lease thereof isgoverned by the provisions of the Act and supplemented by theregulatory regime under the Rules. There is no discretion consecratedeither in the Commissioner of Endowments or in any other Official ofthe department to grant leases or even approve the leases contrary tothe specific mandate of the Act and the statutory Rules. The Rulesmandate that lease of agricultural lands of Endowment and CharitableInstitutions should be only by the method of public auction, unless thecompetent authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing,that the lease should be granted otherwise than by public auction andin the interest of the Religious Institutions or the Endowmentconcerned. Interest of the persons in occupation or any other interest,other than the interest of the Endowment Institution, is extraneous material under the provisions of the Rules. It would be a very raresituation where leases are required to be entered into otherwise thanthrough the process of public auction, in the interest of a ReligiousInstitution or Endowment. In such legal architecture, the petitioner’sclaim that he is a tenant, on the basis of a vague acknowledgement ofthat status by a non formal communication of the Manager or theAssistant Commissioner, would be of no avail.

Extravagant and impermissible certification by evenEndowment Officials would not create rights or legitimate expectationsin favour of persons in relation to Endowment lands, contrary to theprovisions of the Act and the Rules. If the petitioner has not beenawarded a lease in accordance with the provisions of the Act and theRules and after approval by the competent authority as mandated, heis not a cultivating tenant. Unless he is a cultivating tenant satisfyingthe qualifications under Section 82 (1) of the Act, he would not beentitled to be considered as a landless poor person, as the expressionis defined in Section 82 of the Act. Not every landless poor person perse is entitled to the benefits under Section 82 of the Act. To derivesuch benefits, the person should have been a lawful cultivating tenantof the Endowments Lands for a period of six years as on the date of thecommencement of the Act. Encroachers or persons in physicalpossession of Endowment Lands, the beneficiaries of the negligenceof Endowment officials would not be entitled to be considered aslawful cultivating tenants.

In the above circumstances, the pleadings or the averments atthe bar do not establish even a prima facie case that the petitioner is alawful cultivating tenant of the lands of the second respondent in anextent of Ac.1.90 cents and that he was such a cultivating tenant for aperiod of six years continuously (as specified in Section 82 (1) and (2)

of the Act). There is no declaration of any competent authority that thepetitioner is a landless poor person. In the circumstances, thepetitioner appears to have no locus to interdict the conduct of auctionby or on behalf of the second respondent for grant of leasehold rightsof its agricultural lands. The relief in specie as sought in the WritPetition cannot therefore be granted.

In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has categoricallystated that the petitioner had an approved lease only for the periodfrom 2002-03 to 2004-05, and therefore, he was not considered asentitled to the benefits under Section 82 of the Act. Paragraph 5 of thecounter affidavit also asserts that the petitioner was not even willing toenhance the rent. The counter categorically denies the assertion ofthe petitioner that he is entitled to continue in possession of the lands.There is nothing in the Writ Petition or in the averments urged onbehalf of the writ petitioner that rebut the defence to the writ petitionasserted by the second respondent.

The Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on meritswith liberty to the petitioner to make appropriaterepresentations/applications before the appropriate/competentauthorities, if he so desires, claiming and producing material in supportof his claim that he is a lawful cultivating tenant of the lands of thesecond respondent-Devasthanam, having lawful lease in accordancewith the provisions of the Act and the Rules, continuously with thestatus as such tenant for a period of six years as on the date of the Act,having other qualifications as entitle him to be considered as alandless poor person under Section 82 of the Act. On such claim beingestablished on cogent material and evidence, the respondents or thecompetent authority may consider the petitioner’s application for beinga landless poor person. As on date, there is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s claim that he is a landless poor person. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

26.12.2006vv

___________________

(GODA RAGHURAM, J)