WRIT PETITION 28278 of 2010 on 6 November 2010

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed declaring the 3"^^ respondent’s proceedings inNo.39290/2010 dated 06.11.2010, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner’s family being poorlandless farmers, her husbandSri Venkataiah was grantedleaseover an

Facts

extent of Ac 2.10 inSy.No.353in theyear 1969 and onhis death, thepetitioner has been in continuouspossession over the same as a tenant of 3’’'^respondent. The 3'“ respondent in his Notice No. 17/2004, dated 07.05.2004directed the petitioner to opting to purchase the iand in her possession or tocontinue as a tenant. The petitioner stated that she being a iady farmer optedto continue as a tenant and reguiarly paying the ieaseconsideration.Itisfurther stated that the 2"“ respondent has aisogot enquired and declared thepetitionerasalandlesspoorpersoninhisproceedingsinRc.No.B1/5886/2003-10, dated 16.9.2003.

While so, the 3'"'^ respondent issued proceedings vide No.39290/2010,dated 6.11.2010 informed that the petitioner’s right over the land in questionhave been cancelled and the petitioner was also directed not to cultivate theland or enter into the land on the threat of treating her as a trespasser.It isstated that even the 3^^ respondent before passing the impugned proceedingsdated 6.11.2020 has not given an opportunity or notice, which is mandatory.Hence, questioning the action of the 3'^'^ respondent in issuing the impugnedproceedings, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The 2'"'^ respondent has filed counter affidavit and deniedall theallegations madein the petition.It is further stated that the3'^^ respondenttemple is a public Religious Institution.The temple is the absolute owner ofan extent of Ac 141.25 cents of dry land at Chengishkhanpet village, EdiapaduMandal, Guntur District. An extent of Ac 43.32 cents dry land is in possessionand enjoyment of Archakas towards the remuneration for their services and ?5!

also Paditharam expenses.The temple is in possession of Ac 97.93 centstowards maintenance. Ac 18.50 cents is under encroachment of villagers whoraised residential houses. Though the temple is having other service Inamsfor Bhajantree service, Swastivachakam Service, Kattubadi-Paharaserviceetc., to a tune of about Ac 400.00 cents, the servicedars got pattas underInams Abolition Act 1956 and have been enjoying the same as suchthetemple is remained with the above said extent.Itis further stated that, theISKON Organization, Rajahmundry, came forwardto constructaGoldentemple in the place of the existing dilapidated temple and to develop theareaand requested to handover the endowment land pertains to3'"'^ respondenttemple and also Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy temple, Kondaveedu along withother private lands.In accordance with the said proposal, the Governmentdecided to lease out to an extent of Ac 53.65 cents of land belongs to 3^"respondenttempleandanextentofAc3.38centsbelongstoSriRamalingeswara Swamy Temple for a period of 99 years, thus making a totalof Ac 55.62 cents on payment of one time lease amount of Rupees One lakhper acre to be paid by ISKON organization.Accordingly, the Governmentissued G.O.Ms.No.1108 dated 31.08.2010 and instructed the Commissionerto take further action in this matter.In the said G.O.,it was also mentionedthat, to cancel any lease and refund the deposits to the leaseholds of the saidland.It is further stated that an extent of Ac 14.83 cents was leased out tolandless poor persons who were declared as such by this respondent.Thepetitioner herein was declared as landless poor and has been continuingin

the land by raising crops in the land by paying the respective makthasto therespondent temple.In pursuance of the aboveG.O., the Commissioner,Endowmentsdepartment,A.P.HyderabadissuedinstructionsinRc.No.N2/39290/2010, dated 18.09.2010 to takefurther action,Since thereISno specific direction by the Commissioner. Endowments,regarding thecancellation of existing leases, this respondent addressedthe Commissioner,Endowment Department in Rc.No.B1/460/2010, dated 27.10.2010requestingfor cancellation of lease approval orders since they are in force.It is furtherstatedthattheCommissioner,Endowments,initsorderinRc.No.N2/39290/2010 dated 03.11.2010 issued orders grantingpermission tothis respondent for cancellation of leases landlesspoorpersonswhichincludes the petitioner herein along with the leases put in public auctionInpursuance of the same, the Assistant commissioner, EndowmentsGunturinRc.No.B1/460/2010, dated 06.11.2010 issued orders ofcancellationof theleases andinstructedrespondentto implement thesaidordersandhandover the lands to the ISKON authorities.Therefore,[there]are no meritsin the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. The 3''^ respondent has also filed counter affidavit denying all theallegations made in the writ petition. While reiterating the averments madeinthecounterfiledbythe2"^^respondent,itisstatedthat,videRc.No.BI/460/2010,dated06.11.2010.theAssistantCommissioner,Endowments, Guntur, directed this respondent to implement the orders andhandover the lands to the ISKON authorities and submit action taking report unfailingly.In pursuance of the said instructions, the 3'"^ respondent[issued]notices to the petitioner herein as well as to other tenants regarding the saidcancellation of the leases and that the deposit amounts will be refunded andrequested them to receive the deposits within three days and etc.Thereafter,this respondent handedoverthesaidlandto ISKONorganizationon08.11.2010 after taking possession from the petitioner on the same day.Thisrespondent implemented the orders issued by the higher authorities and aisothe Government as mentioned supra, and as such, there are no merits in theinstant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.notices to the petitioner herein as well as to other tenants regarding the saidcancellation of the leases and that the deposit amounts will be refunded andrequested them to receive the deposits within three days and etc.Thereafter,this respondent handedoverthesaidlandto ISKONorganizationon08.11.2010 after taking possession from the petitioner on the same day.Thisrespondent implemented the orders issued by the higher authorities and aisothe Government as mentioned supra, and as such, there are no merits in theinstant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court vide order dated 12.11.2010 has granted interim orderthat both parties are directed to maintain status quo.

6. Heard Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing[for][ the]petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader of EndowmentsandSriM.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowmentsappearing forthe respondents.

7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating theaverments made in the petition submits that the petitioner is not a party to the1®‘ and 2""' respondents’ proceedings dated 3.11.2010 and 6.11.2010andeven the copies were not served on the petitioner.He submits that withoutgiving any ample opportunity or notice to the petitioner, therespondent hasissued impugned proceedings, which are against theprinciplesof naturaljustice and liable to be set aside.Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly

contended that the petitioner is apoor lady farmer and with great difficulty sheraised crop in the lands,He further submits that the petitioner being a ladyand aged about 70 years old. At this belatedstage of her life, if the petitionerIS ousted from the lands in her possession, she will be left with no source ofincome and hasto facelot of financialand other risks and hardships.Therefore, learned Counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders bysetting aside the impugned order.

8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleaderfor Endowmentsappearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 havereiterated the avermentsmade in the counters filed by them and prayedto dismiss the writ petition[as]there are no merits in the instant petition.

9. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for Endowmentsappearing forthe 3respondent has also reiterated thecontents madein the counter.During hearing, learned Standing Counsel, submits thatan extent of Ac 14.83cents was leased out to landlesspoor persons, who were declared, as suchby the Assistant Commissioner, EndowmentsDepartment,Guntur.Thepetitioner herein is declared as landlesspoor and is continuing in the land byraisingcropsinher land by paying therespectivemakthastothe3'^^respondent temple. He submits that since there is no specific direction by theCommissioner, Endowments DepartmentA.P.,regardingcancellationofexistingleases,the AssistantCommissioner,EndowmentsDepartment,Guntur addressedtheCommissioner,EndowmentsDepartment,inhisRc.No.BI/460/2010, dated 27.10.2010requestingfor cancellationof lease approval orders since theyarein force.The Commissioner, EndowmentsDepartment in his orders inRc.No.N2/39290/2010 dated 03.11.2010grantingpermission to the Assistant Commissioner, EndowmentsDepartment, Guntur,for cancellation of leases andlandless poor persons which including thepetitioner herein along with the leasesput in public auction.Inpursuance ofthe said orders the Assistant Commissioner,Endowments Department in hisRc.No.B1/460/2010 dated 06.11.2010iissued orders for cancellation of theleases and instructed the 3'^ respondent to implement the said ordersandhandover the lands to the ISKONauthorities.Learned Standing counselmainly contended that in pursuance of the above instructionsthe3respondent issued notices to the petitioner hereinas well as to other tenantsregarding the said cancellation of leasesand handed over the said land to theISKON organizationon 8.11.2010 after taking possession from the petitioneron the same day.Thereforeas there are no merits in the instant petition thesame is liable to be dismissed.

10. On perusing the materialon record,it is observed that,it is thecontentionofthepetitionercounselthat,beinglandlessfarmersthepetitioner’s husband Sri Venkataiahwas granted lease over an extent of Ac2.10 cents in 1969 and on his demise, the petitioner hereinhas beenincontinuous possession over the same as a tenant of 3''’respondent and shecontinued to cultivate the land.

11. AsseenfromtheProceedingsinD.Dis.No.AI/WNDW-NADM/56/2024 dated 26.06.2024 of the Deputy Commissioner, EndowmentsNADM/56/2024 dated 26.06.2024 of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments

Department, Guntur, wherein,it was mentioned that,in the circumstancesreported by the Inspector, Endowments Department, Narasaraopetinthereference cited andin exercise of the powers vestedinhimunder Rule16(2)(IV) of the Rules framed under Section 82 of the AndhraPradeshCharitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987issued in G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endts-I) Department, dated 11.03.2003,the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur hereby approvesthe lease of lands belongs to Sri Vennamuddala Gopala Krishna SwamyTemple, Chengiskhanpet (V), Ediapadu (M), Palnadu District heldin publicauction on 24.06.2024, wherein, the petitioner’s son name waslistedatSI.No.7 - Sri Basela Satyanarayana in Sy.No.353 in an extent of Ac 2.10cents.In the said proceedings,it was also mentioned that, the ExecutiveOfficer of the above institution has instructed to obtain Registered lease deedwith adequate security from the lessee as per Rules immediately vide Rule 17of the above said G.O.

12. On a perusal of the above, this Court observed that, admittedly thepetitioner herein has beenin continuous occupation and possession of thesubjectlandbeingasmall farmerof thelandbelongstothe Templeadmeasuring anextent of Ac 2.10 centsinSy.No.353.Thereafter,theAssistant Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur issued the impugned orderdated 6.11.2010 stating that the leasehold rights over[the][ said land][ have][ been]cancelled andthe deposits made by the petitioner areforfeitedandtheamounts paid by the petitioner with regard to public[auction]of Rs.200/-is directed to be released to tne petitioner within 3 days from the date of receiptof this notice.

13. In view of the above discussion,it is clear, that the petitioner’sfather was granted lease over the subject land in the year 1969 and after hisdemise the petitioner herein has beenin continuous possession over thesameas a tenant of 3'^^ respondent.But, as per proceedings of the DeputyCommissioner, Endowments Department Guntur, vide D.Dis No.AI/ENDW-NADM/56/2024 dated 26.06.2024, wherein thepetitioner’ssonnamewasmentioned at SI.No.7 to an extent of Ac 2.10 cents in Sy No.353 andin theauction he was paid Rs. 16,500/-.

14. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s son hasparticipated in the said auction and he was declared as highest bidderbypaying lease amount, therefore, he is having possession in the subject land tocultivate the land.Butitisnotin dispute that thepetitioner’s sonhasparticipated and declared as highest bidder.

15. Admittedly, the petitioner isin occupation and possession for 4yearsfrom2008to2011.After completionof leaseperiod, whentherespondentshavecancelledtheleaseholdrightsofthepetitionervideimpugned proceedings.In the meantime, the respondent temple authoritieshave issued notification and conducted public auction and fresh lease periodwas executed.If the petitioner’s son was participated[and][ he] was[ declared as]

i

highest bidder in the said auction, the cause in the present writ petition doessurvive and they are not come under ‘landless poor’ family.

16. So, in view of the above discussion, whatever the objections raisedby the petitioner counsel are not acceptable.Therefore, this Court foundnomerit in the instant petition as devoid of merits and the sameis liable to bedismissed.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs.As a sequel,all the pending miscellaneous applications shallstand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- P. VINOD KUMARASSISTANT. REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER

To,

1. One CC to SRI. V SREE RANGA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court Of Andhra[Pradesh.][OUT][OUT]

3. One CC to SRI. V T M PRASAD,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS Advocate[OPUC][OPUC]

4. Three CD Copies

GSSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.28278 of 2010

AMO'fy^■9X2 8 IAN 2025mO'to,^A Cufreni ;^eci»on^^^£^SPATCV^5S^<^

DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS