THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.17433 of 2010
ORDER:-
The petitioner claims to be the cultivating tenant of
Ac.1.00 cents of wet land belonging to the 4th respondent-temple
in Sy.No.903 of Santhamaguluru Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent to declare the petitioner as a landless poor person, so that the petitioner could continue as cultivating tenant of the Ac.1.00 acres of land in possession. This application was rejected by the 3rd respondent, by proceedings dated 03.08.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Appeal No.30 of 2006 which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 06.02.2008. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9923 of 2008 before the erstwhile High Court of A.P which was disposed of by remanding the appeal to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had again rejected the appeal by an order dated 28.06.2010 which is assailed in the present writ petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his family have been cultivating the land for more than the required six years prior to the coming in to force of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987'). The petitioner contends that a tenant who holds less than Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land respectively shall be entitled to be declared as a landless poor person in terms of 2 RRR,J W.P.No.17433 of 2010 Sec.82 of the Act, 1987 and the order of the 2nd respondent rejecting his application despite the fact that he falls squarely within the said definition is untenable and needs to be set-aside.
3. The 2nd respondent, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner, had held that -
1) The petitioner had produced a receipt dated 17.10.1986 showing payment of rent and an extension of lease order from 1992-93 which would go to show that he was a tenant prior to 1992 also. On that basis, the 2nd respondent took a view that the petitioner, at best, can be treated to be in occupation of the land and paying Maktha from the year 1986 onwards.
2) The petitioner did not have any registered deed of sale which is the basic requirement for being recognized as a landless poor person.
4. Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said order of rejection on the ground that the rental receipts produced are sufficient to show that the petitioner has been a tenant of the temple for more than six years prior to the commencement of the Act, 1987.
5. Section 82(2) of the Act read with Explanation stipulates that any person who holds a total extent of land, either as owner or as cultivating tenant, which is less than Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land would be declared as a landless poor person. Thereafter, any such landless poor person, who has a lease of agricultural land of an 3 RRR,J W.P.No.17433 of 2010 Endowment Institution for not less than six years continuously before the advent of the Act would have the right to purchase such lands for consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value or where the landless poor person is not able to purchase the land, he/she would continue as a tenant on payment of 2/3rd of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount.
6. The erstwhile High Court of A.P in Dega Babi Reddy Vs. Government of A.P.,1 had held that only persons who have a registered deed of lease can be recognized as a cultivating tenant in terms of Section 82 of the Act, 1987 and mere payment of Maktha and continuation in possession of the land would not confer the status of a cultivating tenant on the said person. This principle was further affirmed and followed by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in the case of Donthi Reddy Sambi Reddy Vs. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and Ors.2
7. In the present case, the petitioner does not have any registered deed of lease. The 2nd respondent after referring to the above two judgments had held that the petitioner cannot be recognized as a cultivating tenant to give him the benefit of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, 1987. The 2nd respondent had also held that the documents produced by the petitioner only demonstrated that he was at best in possession of the land and paying Maktha only from the year 1986-87 and as such, was not in possession of the land for the requisite six years prior to the advent of the Act in 1987.
1 2006 (6) ALD 214 2 2008 (6) ALD 121 4 RRR,J W.P.No.17433 of 2010
8. On the basis of the above findings, that the petitioner is not a landless poor person and that he was not in possession of the land as cultivating tenant for at least six years prior to the Act of 1987, the 2nd respondent had rejected the appeal of the petitioner. In view of the law settled by the above two judgments and in view of the above findings, there is no scope for any interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 03-12-2021 RJS 5 RRR,J W.P.No.17433 of 2010 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17433 of 2010 Date : 03-12-2021 RJS