Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Maddireddy Venkata Krishna Reddy vs The Commissioner, on 31 January, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.4198 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner claims ownership of Ac.0.18 cents of land and states
that he is also a cultivating tenant of the 3rd respondent-institution to an
extent of Ac.5.40 cents of dry land in Sy.No.416 and Ac.0.35 cents of dry
land in Sy.No.417 of Gopanapalem Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore
District. However, the petitioner states that actual, available land of the
3rd respondent in his possession, as a tenant is only Ac.5.39 cents.
2. The 1st respondent by proceedings in Rc.No.M3/62643/91,
dated 21.09.1993 had granted permission to the 3rd respondent to sell the
land given on lease to the petitioner by way of a public auction. Aggrieved
by the said permission, the petitioner is said to have approached the
respondents with a representation claiming that he is entitled to purchase
the said land as a landless poor person. He further states that he had
made representations on various occasions including 28.01.2009 for grant
of recognition as a landless poor person under the provisions of
Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') and the A.P. Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land
Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Agricultural Rules, 2003'). This representation
has been returned by the 2nd respondent with an endorsement dated
16.03.2009 stating that the application does not mention the name of the
institution which owns the land. Thereafter, another representation dated
18.04.2009 was submitted by the petitioner by way of registered post and
the same was received by the 2nd respondent on 19.04.2009.
2 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4198 of 2010
3. The petitioner had also filed a Tenancy Case under the
provisions of the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956. However, this case, which was
originally numbered as A.T.C.No.3 of 2002 before the Tenancy Officer,
Kavali-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali had been returned, as not
being maintainable by virtue of the provisions of the Act.
4. The petitioner has now approached this Court on the ground
that even after the respondents are unwilling to recognise the petitioner
as a landless poor person, he was entitled to continue as a tenant of the
3rd respondent to the extent of the limit set out in Section 82 of the Act.
5. Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner had admitted that
he is the tenant of the 3rd respondent to an extent of Ac.5.39 cents of
land and he owns an extent of Ac.0.18 cents of land, aggregating to
Ac.5.57 cents of land, the same would not take the petitioner out of the
protection of Section 82 of the Act. He submits that even though the
threshold limit of Ac.5.00 of dry land has been breached by the petitioner,
the protection under Section 82 was still be available to the petitioner.
6. He submits that the Explanation to Section 82, brings within
its fold those persons, who do not hold the land exceeding Ac.5.00 of dry
land. However, Rule 3 (3) of the Agricultural Rules, 2003 provides that a
lessee holding the land in excess of Ac.0.50 cents of dry land over the
ceiling limit of Ac.5.00 and Ac.0.25 cents of wet land in excess of the
ceiling limit of Ac.2.50 cents of wet land may be allowed to continue in
lease, subject to the payment of 2/3rd of the prevailing market rent and
the excess land held, if any, above these limits, shall be taken over by the
institutions and put to public auction. He would submit that the said Rule
has been reiterated in Explanation-II to Section 82 of the Act.
3 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4198 of 2010
7. In the said circumstances, he would submit that even if the
petitioner is not entitled for being declared as landless poor person or
entitled to purchase the lands, the petitioner would still be entitled to
continue in the land held by him as a lessee to the extent of Ac.5.50 cents
and the 3rd respondent would only be entitled to recover the remaining
Ac.0.07 cents and sell the same.
8. In view of the provisions in Explanation-II to Section 82, the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
brushed aside. A reading of Explanation-II clearly shows that the said
provision creates a lacuna in the Act. The Explanation to Section 82
defines a landless poor person as a person, who either as owner or as
cultivating tenant does not hold more than Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or
Ac.5.00 of dry land and whose monthly income from such lands does not
exceed Rs.12,000/- per annum. This would clearly mean that the
mandatory limit, beyond which a tenant of an endowment institution
cannot be treated as a landless poor person, is either Ac.2.50 cents of wet
land or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land. Once this limit is breached, the question
of the said person being treated as a landless poor person does not arise.
However, Explanation-II to Section 82 states that a small or marginal
farmer, who is holding lands in excess of Ac.0.25 cents of wet land over
the threshold limit of Ac.2.50 cents and an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of dry
land in excess of the threshold limit of Ac.5.00, should be allowed to
continue as a lessee to the extent of threshold limit and the land in excess
of the above the threshold limit can be recovered by the institution and
sold if necessary.
9. Even though, there is a clear inconsistency between these
two provisions, it would be the duty of this Court to harmonise these two
4 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4198 of 2010
provisions and give effect to both the provisions to the maximum extent
possible.
10. This apparent inconsistency and contradiction between
Explanation-II to Section 82 and Explanation-I to Section 82 can be
harmonised partially by recognising the fact that the explanation to
Section 82 is essentially a definition of 'landless poor person' while
Explanation-II does not speak of a landless poor person and only speaks
of small and marginal farmers, who are holding lands in excess of Ac.0.25
cents of wet land or Ac.0.50 cents of dry land over the threshold limit.
11. In that view of the matter, it must be held that a person,
who is in breach of the threshold limit of Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or
Ac.5.00 of dry land cannot be given recognition as a landless poor person.
He would not be entitled to purchase the agricultural lands of the religious
endowments or charitable institutions under Section 82 (2) of the Act.
However, Explanation-II read with proviso to Section 82 (2) would permit
small and marginal farmers to continue in possession of Ac.2.50 cents +
Ac.0.25 cents of wet land or Ac.5.00 + Ac.0.50 cents of dry land as
lessees of the institutions subject to payment of rents mentioned in
Section 82 of the Act.
12. In the circumstances, the petitioner herein would be entitled
to continue as lessee of the 3rd respondent-institution as long as he pays
the rents regularly. However, this benefit would not be available to the
legal heirs of the petitioner herein as these benefits were granted only as
one time affair under the provisions of the Act. I am fortified in this view
by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.14504 of 2021 dated 28.07.2021.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondent to consider the application of the petitioner as per
5 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4198 of 2010
Explanation-II to Section 82 of the Act to continue as a lessee, subject to
payment of rents regularly. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
31st January, 2022
Js
6 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4198 of 2010
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.4198 of 2010
31st January, 2022
Js
