WP/27561/2005 of Pothula Swamy Naidu Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department on 26 December 2005

ORDER:

Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned auction notice dated12.12.2005 issued by the fourth respondent proposing to conduct the auction of the landsadmeasuring Ac.14.39 cents situated in S.No.290, 163/3, 163/6 of Guttinadevi Village, I. PolavaramMandal, East Godavari District on 27.12.2005 during the middle of the second crop asillegal and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner has originally taken thelease of above-mentioned lands in the year 1964 in the interest of the joint family of the firstpetitioner and he has been paying the maktha since then. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the first petitioner and the petitioners 4 to 6 are the sons of the brother, Late Balaram, ofthe first petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that Mr. Balaram died three yearsago and his sons also have a share in the said property. All the petitioners are cultivatingthe land individually in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents each.

Admittedly, the lease was granted to the first petitioner alone and not to the individualpersons. If that be so, the question of dividing the leased property in the joint family does notarise. However, all leases stand cancelled by virtue of Section 82 of the Andhra PradeshCharitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’).

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the first petitioner filed anapplication before the third respondent to declare him as small farmer but the saidapplication has been dismissed by order dated 10.01.2005 in M.A.No.361 of 2004. As against the said order the petitioners have filed an appeal before the second respondentand the second respondent dismissed the same in Appeal No.81 of 2005 by order dated30.06.2005. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been cultivatingthe said land from 1964 onwards and they have raised the second crop and plantation iscompleted, which will come up for harvest within a couple of months. Therefore, givingauction notification to lease out the said lands from second crop 2005-2006 till the secondcrop from 2008 – 2009 for a period of 3 ½ years is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners do not have anyobjection if the said auction is conducted from the first crop of 2006 onwards. He furthersubmits that having permitted the petitioners to raise the second crop in the month ofNovember/December, auctioning the cultivating rights of the second crop of 2005-2006 bythe fourth respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable as the petitioners invested hugeamounts for their agricultural operations.

Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that they are small farmers and are entitled forthe benefits of small farmers is concerned, I am unable to accept the said contention and Ido not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned orders, the auction notice dated12.12.2005 issued by the fourth respondent, which includes the right to cultivate the second crop for the year 2005. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have raised a secondcrop in the lands in question, and therefore, the petitioners are permitted to file arepresentation before the fourth respondent to protect their rights in respect of the secondcrop for the year 2005-2006 and on such a representation being filed, the fourth respondentmay consider and dispose the same in accordance with law for protecting the cultivatingrights of the petitioners to harvest the second crop on certain terms and conditions, if really,the petitioners have raised a second crop.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

December 26, 2005

______________

V. ESWARAIAH, J