WP/25121/2004 of Kovvuri Satti Reddy, Vs The Assistant Commissioner , on 31 December 2004

1. Kovvuri Satti Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Age:56 Yrs.,Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Nattarameswaram village, PenumantraMandal, West Godavari District.Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Nattarameswaram village, PenumantraMandal, West Godavari District.

2. Kovvuri Sitaratnam, W/o.Suryanarayana Reddy, Age:61 Yrs.,Occ:Agrl., R/o.Nattarameswaram village, Penumantra Mandal,West Godavari District.Occ:Agrl., R/o.Nattarameswaram village, Penumantra Mandal,West Godavari District.

3. Thaviti Pedduppari S/o.Bairavudu, Age:39 Yrs., Occ:Agrl.,R/o.Nattarameswaram village, Penumantra Mandal, West GodavariDistrict.R/o.Nattarameswaram village, Penumantra Mandal, West GodavariDistrict.

..... PETITIONERS

AND

1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, WestGodavari District.Godavari District.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, EastGodavari District.Godavari District.

3. Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple, Nattarameswaram village,Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari Dist., rep.by its Manager.Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari Dist., rep.by its Manager.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto call for the records and issue a writ or order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents intrying to dispossess the petitioners forcibly from the lands, which are under thecultivation of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.12.85 cents, and Ac.4-06 cents respectively, of the third respondent temple situated in R.S.No.197 of NattaRameswaram village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District, withoutfollowing due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,21and 300(A) of the Constitution of India apart from being violation of theprinciples of Natural Justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATA RANGADAS KANURICounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioners claim to be the cultivating tenants of various extents of landbelonging to Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple, Nattarameswaram village,Penumantra mandal, West Godavari district. They seek a direction to therespondents not to dispossess them.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader forEndowments and learned standing counsel for the third respondent temple.

The petitioners state that they are the tenants of the lands of the templereferred to above, since last several years. According to them, they submittedan application before the first respondent seeking a declaration that they arelandless poor persons, as defined under explanation to Section 82 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (forshort ‘the Act’). The first respondent is said to have rejected their claim throughproceedings dated 03.12.2004 and the petitioners allege that they preferred anappeal before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada. They allege thateven while their claim is pending in appeal, the respondents are taking steps todispossess them. Under Section 82 of the Act, leases in respect of theagricultural lands stood terminated. The Government framed Rules forenforcing the provisions of Section 82 of the Act. Certain benefit is conferred infavour of the landless poor persons, as defined under explanation to Section82. It is not in dispute that the tenancy is in respect of the wet lands. Accordingto the definition, only such persons, who are not owners or lessees in respectof the wet land not exceeding Ac.2.50 cents, are entitled to be declared aslandless poor persons. Even on their own showing, the petitioners are lesseesin respect of about Ac.20.00 of land in all. Therefore, the question of their being treated as landless poor does not arise. Under the Rules framed by theGovernment, the only method to be adopted while granting leasehold rights isby way of public auction. The law does not require any further steps to be takenfor the purpose of resuming the possession from the existing tenants.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

----------------------

31.12.2004

ksld

To

1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, WestGodavari District.Godavari District.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, EastGodavari District.Godavari District.

3. The Manager, Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple, Nattarameswaramvillage, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari Dist.village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari Dist.

4Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Endowments, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).

5 Two C.D. Copies.