WP/16893/2004 of G.Sankara Rao, Vs The Assistant Commissioner, on 29 December 2004

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

W.P.No. 16893 of 2004

% 29-12-2004

G. Sankara Rao

Vs.

..... Petitioner

$ 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawadaand others … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : G.P.for Endowments Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4: Smt. N. Indrani <Gist :>Head Note :

?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 16893 of 2004

Between:

G.Sankara Rao, S/o Subbaiah, R/o Kavuluru Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District

AND

1 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District Krishna District 2 The Executive Officer, Sri Santhanal Venu Gopala & Anjaneya Swamyvari Devasthanam, Kavuluru Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District 3 The Person-in- Management, Sri Santhana Venu Gopala & Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Kavuluru Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District 4 The Board of Trustees, Sri Santhana Venu Gopala & Anjaneya Swamy vari Devasthanam, Kavuluru Mandal, G.Kondurur Mandal, Krishna District

.....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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly, one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of the 1stRespondent vide R.C.No.D.Dis.No.A1/531/2004/Dated 16-09-2004 proposing todirect the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, toresume the land on 20-09-2004 to an extent of Ac.17.73 Cts situated inR.S.No.276, Kavuluru Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, to conductpublic auction on the same without determining the lease hold rights of thePetitioner as per law, as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principlesof natural justice, in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India andconsequently set aside the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 : Smt. N. Indrani The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner is the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.17.73 cents of land in surveyNo.276 of Kavuluru village, G. Konduru mandal, Krishna district. The landbelongs to Sri Santhana Venu Gopala Swamy and Sri Anjaneya Swamy VarlaDevasthanam. He claims to have emerged as the successful bidder in theauction, held on 12.04.1990 for the purpose of granting leasehold rights over the land, for a sum of Rs.6,400/- per year. According to him, the lease wasbeing extended from year to year and that he made an application to the TrustBoard of the Devasthanam on 20.05.2003 requesting them to renew the leasefor another three years, by offering the lease amount at Rs.25,000/- per year.He feels aggrieved by the notification dated 16.09.2004, whereunder the firstrespondent proposed to conduct auction of the leasehold rights of the land on20.09.2004.

The petitioner contends that out of Ac.17.00, only Ac.8.00 of land is fit forcultivation and even for developing the same, he spent huge amounts. Hesubmits that the Trust Board of the Devasthanam has already recommendedfor continuance of his lease and that there is no justification on the part of thefirst respondent in proposing to conduct the auction of the leasehold rights. Heclaims to have raised the crops over the land during the current season.

A counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent, the Assistant Commissionerof Endowments, Vijayawada. It is stated that the lease in favour of thepetitioner stood terminated by operation of Section 82 of the Andhra PradeshCharitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short‘the Act’) and that the petitioner has no right to continue over the land. It is alsostated that W.P.No.12991 of 2004, filed by the petitioner, was disposed of on17.08.2004 leaving it open to the petitioner to make an application for declaringhim as landless poor person, whereas no such relief was claimed by thepetitioner, obviously because he is not entitled for the same.

The first respondent also stated that the possession of the land was taken fromthe petitioner on 20.09.2004 at 09.00 a.m. and it was handed over to thePerson-in-Management of the Temple. In the auction held for grant of leaseholdrights, eight members are said to have participated by paying the E.M.D. of Rs.30,000/- and that one Sri B. Bhaskara Rao has emerged as the highest bidderfor a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- per year. Stating these facts, he pleads for vacatingthe interim orders as well as the dismissal of the writ petition.

Sri K. Ravindra Kumar, leaned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thepetitioner was granted the lease for the agricultural lands in the year 1990through the process of auction and there was no basis or justification for therespondents, to conduct auction once again when the petitioner is willing to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per year. He also contends that the representation of thepetitioner for extension of lease is pending with the respondents and theycannot conduct auction without disposing of the same.

Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and learned standing counsel forDevasthanam, on the other hand, submit that once the lease in favour of thepetitioner stood terminated by operation of law, he is not entitled to continue aslessee over the land. They also submit that the Government framed the Rulesfor the purpose of enforcing Section 82 of the Act and according to Rule 8 ofthe same, the leasehold rights of such lands are to be granted only on the basisof an open auction and not otherwise. According to them, the Devasthanamwas put to great loss for all these years on account of the unauthorizedcontinuance of the petitioner over the land.

The petitioner was granted lease in respect of the land, by the Devasthanam,way back in the year 1990. Though Section 82 of the Act provided fortermination of leases over agricultural lands belonging to religious institutionsand Endowments, it could not be given effect to, in view of the Judgment of thisCourt striking of the said provision. Recently, the Supreme Court reversed theJudgment of this Court and upheld the validity of Section 82. The section wasfurther amended, through Act No.27 of 2002. Now there is no impediment forenforcing that provision. The Legislature protected the interests of landlesspoor persons, as defined under the explanation to Section 82, by providing forcertain concessions to them.

The Government framed Rules in G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (End-I) Department,dated 11.03.2003, for the purpose of determination of status of existing tenantsas landless poor and prescribed the procedure to be adopted for grantingleases. Rule 8 thereof, mandates that grant of leasehold rights by suchinstitutions or endowments shall be through the process of public auction,except where a decision is taken at appropriate level, duly recording thereasons for deviating from the procedure. No proposal has emerged from therespondents for award of leasehold rights otherwise than through the medium ofauction, for the land in question.

The respondents proposed to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights, inthe month of July 2004. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12991 of 2004 and obtained interim orders. The writ petition was disposed of on 17.08.2004 directing that itshall be open to the petitioner to file an application for determination of hisstatus as landless poor, as provided for under G.O.Ms.No.379, and till hisstatus is determined the auction shall not be held. In fact, the petitioner neverclaimed the status of landless poor and the question of his filing the applicationbefore the first respondent for that purpose did not arise. There appears to havebeen some communication gap when the order in that writ petition came to bepassed.

Be that as it may, the petitioner did not choose to file any application, asdirected by this Court in the said writ petition. Having waited sufficiently, therespondents issued the auction notification dated 16.09.2004. The groundspleaded by the petitioner in challenge to that notification are that he is inclinedto enhance the lease amount from Rs.6,400/- to Rs.25,000/- and that he hasinvested huge amounts for developing the land. Even if these contentions areplausible, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, in view of the unequivocalconsequences provided for under Section 82 of the Act and the Rules containedin G.O.Ms.No.379. The only exception carved out in the matter of termination ofleases under Section 82 of the Act is in favour of the landless poor persons, asdefined under explanation to that section. The petitioner does not at all fit intothat category. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the course adopted bythe respondents. In fact, the Devasthanam was subjected to heavy loss onaccount of the unlawful and illegal continuance of the petitioner over the land.No order passed by any authority has been placed before this Court to showthat the lease in favour of the petitioner was extended beyond 1990. At anyrate, the petitioner was already dispossessed from the land on 20.09.2004. ThisCourt does not find any basis to suspect the clear and unequivocal statementmade by the first respondent in his counter-affidavit.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and the interim order granted by this Courton 20.09.2004 is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

Note:

Mark LR copies.

(BO)

ksld

To

1 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District Krishna District 2 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Endowments, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

3 Two CD copies.