Akula Srinivasulu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2641 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                         W.P.No.11421 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner is the lessee of Sri Anjaneya Swami Vari Temple to

an extent of Ac.4.40 cents of land in Sy.No.147 of Kanaparthi Village,

Chennuru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District since 1999. The petitioner has

produced documents to show possession over the said land from the year

1999 onwards. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been given a

long lease for a period of 99 years till the year 2086 by the Archaka of the

temple, before the temple was taken over by the endowment department,

in the year 2014. Thereafter, auction was conducted for the leasehold

rights for the years 2015-2016 and for the years 2017 to 2020. The 5th

respondent was the highest bidder for the years 2015-2016 and the 6th

respondent was the highest bidder for the years 2017 to 2020. These

Respondents are said to have sub-leased their lease hold rights to the

Petitioner, who continued to cultivate the land.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a landless poor person

and is entitled to the benefit of Section 82 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987,

Act 30/1987, (for short 'the Act') and would have the right to purchase the

said land or in the alternative to continue as a lessee of the land on

payment of the amount set out under Section 82 of the Act. The petitioner

had, in fact, sought extension of lease, for a period of 10 years, from the

3rd respondent by way of application dated 07.04.2017, which was

rejected by the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 13.04.2017.

3. The petitioner had remained silent after the rejection of his

application in 2017. However, when the leasehold rights of this land were 2 RRR,J W.P.No.11421 of 2021

sought to be auctioned under the auction notice dated 11.06.2021, the

petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order of rejection of the

3rd respondent dated 13.04.2017 and also the auction that was proposed

to be held.

4. Sri G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that even though the petitioner had not been recognised as

a land less poor person, in accordance with the procedure set out under

Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions

and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short 'the

Rules'), the petitioner has to be recognised as a landless poor person and

given the benefit of Section 82 of the Act. It is submitted that the

petitioner would be entitled either to claim for purchase of the land or for

continuation as a lessee on payment of 2/3rd of the lease rental, which

could be obtained for the said land.

Consideration of the Court:

5. The petitioner would be entitled for any benefit under

Section 82 only upon being recognised as a landless poor person. Rule 3

of the Rules sets out the procedure for being recognized as a landless

poor person.

6. Section 82 (2) of the Act reads as follows:

82 (2): In respect of leases of agricultural lands [other than those lands situated in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations] held by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person shall have the to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five per centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal instalments in the manner prescribed. Such sale may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public auction :

                                          3                                    RRR,J
                                                               W.P.No.11421 of 2021

[Provided that if such small and marginal farmers who are not able to purchase the land will continue as tenants provided, if they agree to pay at least two third of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section 'landless poor person' means a person whose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed 1.01,1715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.02,3430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other than from such lands does not exceed thou sand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential property exceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property.]

[Explanation II. - For the purpose of this sub-section, small and marginal farmer means a person who being a lessee is holding land% in excess of acres 0.25 cents of wet land or acres 0.50 cents of dry land over and above the ceiling limits of acres 2.50 wet or acres 5.00 dry land respectively they may be allowed to continue in lease subject to payment of 2/3rd of prevailing market rent and excess land held if any more than the above limits shall be put in public auction.]

7. The procedure for a lessee to be recognized as a landless

poor person is set out in Rule 3 of the Rules, which reads as follows:

Rule 3: Determination of Landless Poor Person:- (1) Immediately after coming into force of these rules, if any cultivating tenant claims to be a landless poor person, the Assistant Commissioner having territorial Jurisdiction shall enquire into and decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person as defined in Section 82 after giving a reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the Executive Authority of the concerned institution or Endowment.

                                        4                                  RRR,J
                                                           W.P.No.11421 of 2021

(2) If the cultivating tenant does not claim to be a landless poor person or if the Assistant Commissioner concerned determines that the cultivating tenant is not a landless poor person, the tenancy will be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from 28.05.1987 and the cultivating tenant shall be regarded as a tenant holding over thereafter. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained under sub-rule (2), where a small farmer, being a lessee is holding land in excess of Ac.0.25 cents wet land or Ac.0.50 cents of dry land over and above the ceiling limits of Ac.2.50 cents wet land or 5.00 acres dry land respectively, they may be allowed to continue in lease subject to payment of 2/3rd of prevailing market rent and excess land if any more than the above limits shall be taken over by the institutions and such piece of land shall be put in Public Auction for lease. Provided the status of every Land Less Poor tenant shall be re-examined once every three years and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction as the economic status of any person is not a constant. It is equally applicable to cases where persons already declared as Land Less Poor tenants shall also be reviewed once every three years henceforth.

8. In the present case, the petitioner has neither made an

application to recognize him as a landless poor person nor has he been

recognized as a landless poor person, nor given any certificate recognizing

him as a landless poor person. In the circumstances, the petitioner would

not be entitled to any of the benefits set out under Section 82 of the Act.

Even on merits, the petitioner will not succeed in his attempt to be

recognized as a landless poor person.

9. A perusal of these provisions would clearly indicate that only

such persons, who were in possession of the endowment lands as lessees,

at the time when the Act came into force, would be entitled to be 5 RRR,J W.P.No.11421 of 2021

considered for being given the status of landless poor persons as defined

under Section 82 of the Act. Any lessee, who is put into possession of any

endowment land, after the Act came into force, cannot be given the status

of a landless poor person to whom Section 82 of the Act can be extended.

10. The erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, after considering a

similar issue, has held in Bandela Peda Satyam v. Regional Joint

commissioner, Midti Zone-I, Endowment Department, Kakinada

and Ors.,1 that a landless poor person will not get the benefit of Section

82(2), unless he satisfies the requirement of being the tenant of the

Endowment land, as on the date of commencement of Act 30 of 1987 i.e.,

28.05.1981.

11. In view of the above, the petitioner, who does not satisfy

such requirement, cannot claim the status of a landless poor person and

consequently, he is not entitled to any of the benefits under Section 82 of

the Act.

12. Sri G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, had

also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Andhra Pradesh and Ors., v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi and Ors.,2. This

judgment does not, in any manner, assist the case of the petitioner. In

that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question

whether the protected tenants, under the provisions of the A.P.

(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, could claim

the benefit of Section 82 of the Endowments Act. No such issue arises in

the present case.

    2018 (5) ALD 247

    2001 (6) ALD 95 (SC) = 2001 (6) Supreme 481
                                      6                               RRR,J
                                                      W.P.No.11421 of 2021

13. The present Writ Petition suffers from another weakness. The

impugned order was passed on 13.4.2017. The petitioner challenges this

order in 2021 and the same is hit by laches, as no explanation is given for

the inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

14. In view of the above, the rejection of the application of the

petitioner, for being granted the status of landless poor person by the 3rd

respondent, does not require any interference. Consequently, the

petitioner cannot assail the right of the temple in auctioning the leasehold

rights of the land belonging to the temple.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

27th July, 2021 Js.

                          7                           RRR,J
                                      W.P.No.11421 of 2021




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




               W.P.No.11421 of 2021




                  27th July, 2021
Js.