WP/27562/2005 of Pothula Rambabu, Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 26 December 2005

ORDER:

Petitioner 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.6.78 cents situated in S.No.363/1 and 363/2 (wrongly mentioned as 368/2) ofGuttinadevi Village, I. Polavaram Mandal, East Godavari District on 27.12.2005 during themiddle of the second crop as illegal and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has originally taken the lease ofabove-mentioned lands belonging to the fourth respondent temple in the year 1984 and hehas been in possession of the said lands for the last more than two decades and paying maktha regularly. Further, the petitioner along with his family members filed an applicationbefore the third respondent to treat him small farmer under the provisions of the AndhraPradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short‘the Act’) and further stated that he is a landless poor and do not have any other land asdefined under Section 82(2) of the Act, but the said application has been dismissed by orderdated 10.01.2005 in M.A.No.361 of 2004. As against the said order the petitioner has filedan appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent dismissed the same inAppeal No.81 of 2005 by order dated 30.06.2005.

The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been cultivating the saidland from 1984 onwards and has raised the second crop and plantation is completed, whichwill come up for harvest within a couple of months. Therefore, giving auction notification tolease out the said lands from second crop 2005-2006 till the second crop from 2008 – 2009for a period of 3 ½ years is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner does not have anyobjection if the said auction is conducted from the first crop of 2006 onwards. He furthersubmits that having permitted the petitioner 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 petitioner invested huge amountsfor his agricultural operations.

Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that he is a small farmer and entitled for thebenefits of small farmer is concerned, I am unable to accept the said contention and I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise inthe impugned orders and the auction notice dated 12.12.2005 issued by the fourthrespondent.

Insofar as the contention that the petitioner has raised a second crop in the lands inquestion, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the fourth respondent toprotect his rights in respect of the second crop for the year 2005-2006 and on such arepresentation being filed, the fourth respondent may consider and dispose the same inaccordance with law for protecting the cultivating rights of the petitioner to harvest thesecond crop on certain terms and conditions, if really, the petitioner has raised a second crop.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

December 26, 2005DSK

______________V. ESWARAIAH, J