Marugumalli Samyulu vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4964 AP

      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

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

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.

2006 (6) ALD 214

2008 (6) ALD 121

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

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