Telangana High Court
WP/14633/2005 of G.Ganga Suri Babu, Vs The Regional Joint Commissioner, on 23 December 2005
MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NOs.14633 & 15088 OF 2005 DT.23-12-2005 WRIT PETITION NO.14633 OF 2005 Between: G.Gangasuri Babu, S/o Lakshmana Murthy, Aged 31 years, Cultivation, R/o of Talolarevu (V & M), East Godavari District and 21 others. … Petitioners And The
THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NOs.14633 & 15088 OF 2005
DT.23-12-2005
WRIT PETITION NO.14633 OF 2005
Between:
G.Gangasuri Babu,
S/o Lakshmana Murthy,
Aged 31 years, Cultivation,
R/o of Talolarevu (V & M),
East Godavari District and 21 others.
And
… Petitioners
The Regional Joint Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
Multi Zone – I, Kakinada and 2 others.
WRIT PETITION NO.15088 OF 2005
…. Respondents
Alluri Narayana Raju,
S/o Satyanarayana Raju,
Aged 75 years, Cultivation,
Veerabhadrapuram (v) Tallarevu (M),East Godavari District
….. Petitioner
The Assistant Commissioner,Endowments Department,Vijayawada and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NOs.14633 & 15088 OF 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
These two writ petitions, which involve common questions of fact and law, areheard together and decided by this common order.
The petitioners in W.P.No.14633 of 2005, who are 22 in number, claim to be thecultivating tenants of the land situated in R.S.No.77 of Tallarevu Village whichadmittedly belongs to Sri Andhra Jatheeya Vidya Parishad, Machilipatnam. It isstated that all the petitioners put together are in possession of land to an extentof Ac.106.08 cents.
The petitioner in W.P.No.15088 of 2005 claims to be the cultivating tenant inrespect of land belonging to the same institution i.e., Sri Andhra Jatheeya VidyaParishad, Machilipatnam in respect of Ac.7-43 cents of land situated inSy.Nos.610/2, 610/3, 614/1, 618/1, 619/1, 619/2 and 620/2 of Pallipalem Village,Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District.
The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that they are landless poor and therefore in terms of the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and HinduReligious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003,they made applications before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments,Vijayawada seeking a declaration that they are landless poor. So far as theapplications filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.14633 of 2005 are concerned, thesame were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments by orderdated 13-12-2004 and aggrieved by the said order, they preferred an appealbefore the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada on 21-05-2005. The petitioner in W.P.No.15088 of 2005 states that his applicationwas still pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments.
While so, the third respondent – Executive Officer proposed to conduct auctionin respect of lands in question. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions arefiled seeking a declaration that the notice proposing to conduct auction ofleasehold rights is arbitrary and illegal.
It was primarily contended by the petitioners that since their claim that they arelandless poor has not been conclusively determined by the statutoryauthorities, the third respondent was not justified in proposing to conductauction in respect of the lands in their possession. This Court while directingRule Nisi, by orders dated 07-07-2005 and 13-07-2005 directed that the auction,if any, conducted by the third respondent should be subject to the result of thewrit petition.
Conclusion
The petitioners state that by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court,they have been continuing in possession and raised crops which are ready forharvesting as on today. However, as can be seen from the counter-affidavitfiled by the third respondent, the appeal preferred by the petitioners inW.P.No.14633 of 2005 has already been dismissed by the Regional JointCommissioner, Kakinada. Similarly, the application filed by the petitioner inW.P.No.15088 of 2005 was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner ofEndowments and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. The saidfact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In thecircumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under Section82(2) of the Act and therefore, the third respondent cannot be found fault with inproposing to conduct auction of the leasehold rights in respect of the lands inquestion. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that in view of the pendency of these writ petitions, they could not proceed with theauction proposed under the impugned auction notice and now they may bepermitted to conduct fresh auction.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners toharvest the standing crop, subject to the condition that the agreed maktha asfixed by the third respondent is paid. Thereafter, the petitioners shall handovervacant possession of the lands in question to the 3[rd]respondent. Thepetitioners shall furnish an undertaking to that effect to the 3rd respondentwithin four weeks from today. After the standing crop is harvested, it is open tothe 3[rd] respondent to conduct fresh auction.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order asto costs.
Note:
Furnish CC in 4 days.B/o Lrkm.
23-12-2005.
_____________________