Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Darapaneni Subbulu vs The State Of A.P on 30 August, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.25869 of 2016
Between:
# Darapaneni Subbulu, W/o Nagayya
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Endowments) AP Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 2 others.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 30.08.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.25869 of 2016
% 30.08.2024
Between:
# Darapaneni Subbulu, W/o Nagayya
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Endowments) AP Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 2 others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. subba Rao
Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Endowments
Smt. P. Padmavathi
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
APHC010729622016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 25869/2016
Between:
Darapaneni Subbulu, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S)
Secretary and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
3. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS)
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction( i) declaring
the action of the respondents taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an
extent of Ac 5. 00 situated in Sy No 374 of Thimidithapadu of Karamchedu Mandal
Mandal,, Prakasam
District, as illegal and in contravention of Rule 3 of A P charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules 2003 (ii) to declare the
th
proceedings issued by the 4 Respondent Assistant commissioner cancelling the small
farmers certificate issued in favour of the petitioners husband is in contravention of the
procedure contemplated under Rule 3 and 5 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated
11.3.2003 (iii) to declare the action of the Respondents taking steps to evict the Petitioner is in
contravention of the procedure contemplated under Sections 82, 83( 4) 84 and 85 of the
th
Endowments Act (iv) to declare the 5 respondent is not competent to issue notice and
th
issuance of such notice by the 5 Respondent is in contravention of Rule 3 and 5 of the Lease
Rules and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the
proceedings in Rc No A9/2624/2016 dated 14.6.2016 and consequential conduct of auction,
as illegal and pass ......."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband by name
D. Nagaiah is the tenant of the subject land situated in Sy.No.374 to an
extent of Ac 5.00 belongs to Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple or the last
several decades. After his demise, the petitioner is paying the lease
amount and paid the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 way
back on 5.4.2016. Even after collecting the lease amount for the next
agricultural year by the 4th respondent, high handedly sought to conduct
a public auction of the lease hold rights. Accordingly, the petitioner
along with similarly situated farmers filed writ petitions before this Court
seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus insisting to vacate the respective
agricultural lands pursuant to notice dated 18.4.2016 issued by the 6th
respondent without deciding their clients as a small farmers though they
submitted an explanation on 21.5.2016 and the same were disposed of
vide order dated 14.6.2016 directing the respondents not to dispossess
without passing final orders pursuant to Notice dated 18.4.2016. It is
stated that the petitioner's husband Nagaiah was declared as a small
farmer after due enquiry by the 4th respondent by an order dated
4.9.2013.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the present writ
petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in conducting
the auction of lease hold rights of the lands situated in Sy.No.374 to an
extent of Ac. 5.00 of dry land under the possession of the petitioner,
though the petitioner's husband was declared as small farmer vide
proceedings in Rc.No. B4/3635/2003, dated 4-9-2003. Once the
petitioner was declared as a small farmer in terms of A.P. Charitable
and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Lease of Agricultural
land) Rules, 2003, and having collected the lease amount of for the
year, 2016-17 the respondents are disentitled to come to the conclusion
without issuing notice. Basing on the report said to have been submitted
by the 4th respondent, ignoring the certificate which was issued by the
Revenue Officer stating no land has been recorded in the petitioner's
name, the petitioner is landless poor person and her annual income is
about 15,000/-. It is further stated that the petitioner's husband D.
Nagaiah is the tenant of the land situated in Sy.No.374 to an extent of
Ac. 5.00 belongs to Sri Malleswaraswamy Temple for the last several
decades. After the petitioner's husband demise, the petitioner is paying
the lease amount till agricultural year 2016-17 and that the respondents
are disentitled to evict the petitioner after collecting the lease amount.
Even though the petitioner submitted explanation, without considering
the same, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings
dated 14.6.2016. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. This Court vide order dated 3.8.2016 in WPMP No.31965 of 2016
has granted interim direction that the respondents are hereby directed
not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question until further
orders.
5. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While
denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that,
the then E.O of the Temple issued notice on 18.4.2016 to the petitioner
to produce the income certificate, particular of the lands owned by her
and Aadhar Card etc. within 15 days besides informing them if failed the
lands will be placed in P.A for lease. The petitioner failed to submit the
particular. As such the E.O., the 3rd respondent submitted report to the
2nd respondent obtained instruction to place the lands in public auction.
The then E.O has conducted public auction for the very same land in the
year 2016. Her grandson byname Dilip Raj participated in the auction
and became the higher bidder for Rs.2,25,000/- per annum and paid
only Rs.70,000/-. But the lease was not confirmed due to the interim
orders granted by this Court. It is further stated that the provisions of
the Act to declare the petitioner as land less poor, she is not a valid
tenant of the land in question prior to 6 years from the date of
commencement of the Act.30/87. After the death of her husband she is
only entitled to continue the lease only till the expiry of the lease period.
This Hon'ble Court in number of orders held that the land less poor
person lease is not heritable. It is further stated that the petitioner has
not obtained any approvals of lease from the competent authority after
expiry of lease 2009. The husband of the petitioner expired in the year
2008. Hence she is not entitled for declaration of small farmer.
6. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and
Smt. P.Padmavathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
averments made in the petition, submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.425
dated 9.11.2015 it is mandatory for the respondent authorities to
determine the status 'landless poor/small farmers' before passing orders
for eviction. Learned counsel mainly contended that, the petitioner has
submitted all the documents to the 5th respondent and fact remains the
notice is required to be issued by the 4th respondent to the landless poor
persons and the executive authority as per Rule 3 of the Rules. But the
procedure was not followed, simply notice is said to have been issued
through 5th respondent itself is in contravention of the Rules. The Rule
3(1) clearly indicates, after giving reasonable opportunity to the
cultivating tenant and to the Executive Officer, the same shall be
determined the impugned proceedings dated 14.6.2016 clearly indicates
no notice has been given as per the reference indicates except stating
based on the report and letter addressed by the Executive Officer of the
concerned.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
consequential proceedings which were issued by the 5th respondent
also indicates as the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner directed to
conduct auction is going to be conducted on 117.7.2016 but at no point
of time, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered
either by the Assistant Commissioner or by the Executive Authority in
terms of the order passed by this Court. He further submits that without
any notice to the petitioner, the auction was conducted. The successful
bidder was also failed to pay the bid amount and till today the
petitioner's possession was not disturbed. As no notice has been
issued, the petitioner raised crop and paid the lease amount for 2016-17
also. So the respondents are disentitled to evict the petitioner after
collecting the lease amount. He further submits that, in spite of the
order passed by this Court, the auction was held on 11.7.2016 without
obtaining permission from the competent authority and also without any
supervision of any authorized representative of the endowment
department. He further submits that as the auction purchaser did not
deposit the bid amount within stipulated time, the respondents taking
steps to conduct auction again. He further submits that as the lease
amount was collected even prior to the conducting the auction the
respondents are disentitled to dispossess the petitioner from the subject
land. Therefore, learned counsel requested to pass appropriate orders.
9. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents also
reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit. It is mainly
contended that as per the provisions of the Act to declare the petitioner
as landless poor, she is not a valid tenant of the land in question prior to
6years from the date of commencement of the Act 30/1987. Further,
after demise of her husband, she is only entitled to continue the lease
only till the expiry of the lease period. It is further stated that the
petitioner has not obtained any approvals of lease from the competent
authority after expiry of lease 2009 and her husband was expired in the
year 2008 therefore she is not entitled for declaration of small farmer.
Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
10. On perusing the material on record, it is observed that, the
petitioner is small farmer cultivating small extent of land belonging to the
5th respondent temple in Sy.No.374 of Thimidipadu village, Karamcehdu
Mandal of Prakasam District. Further, in pursuance of the notice dated
18.4.2016 seeking to furnish details of Aadhar card, ration card and
income certificate etc. to justify that the petitioner is continue to be a
landless poor person/small farmer, the petitioner submitted a detailed
explanation along with supporting documents. However, the respondent
authorities have issued proceedings dated 14.6.2016 which is impugned
in the present writ petition.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Rule 3 of the Lease of
Agricultural Land Rules 2003, if a cultivating tenant claims to be a
landless poor person, the Assistant Commissioner having territorial
jurisdiction. On enquiry, whether cultivating tenant is a landless poor
person as defined under Section 82. The Rule 3(1) clearly indicates,
after giving reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the
Executive Officer, the same shall be determined the impugned
proceedings dated 14.6.2016 which clearly indicates that no notice has
been given as per the reference indicate except stating that based on
the report and letter addressed by the Executive Officer of the
concerned.
12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the Executive Officer of the Institution is one of the persons who are
required to be had along with small farmers as per the rules. On such,
the question arose for consideration is whether the Executive Officer
who is the opponent as per Rule 3 and issued notice to provide material
to substantiate whether the particular tenant is a small farmer or not
itself is bad and in contravention of the Rules of Agricutlral Lands lease.
This Court further observed that, as no notice has been issued, the
petitioner raised crop and paid the lease amount for 2016-17 also.
Further, after demise of her husband, the petitioner was allowed to be
continued as a tenant since 2009 by increasing the lease amount 1/3 rd
of the amount which is being paid and that the 5th respondent ahs also
collected a sum of Rs.52,000/- on 5./4.2016 itself even prior to issuance
of notice and that the 2nd respondent simply issued impugned order
dated 14.6.2016 stating that earlier declaration of small farmers are
hereby cancelled.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to
disposed of the writ petition, while declaring the action of the
respondents taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the subject
land as illegal and in contravention of Rule 3 of A.P. Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Lease of Agricultural
Land) Rules 2003 and also declaring the proceedings issued by the 4th
respondent as illegal and arbitrary.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned
proceedings in Rc.No.A9/2624/2016, dated 14.06.2016 are hereby set
aside. Further, if at all, the respondents intend to take further action,
they have to follow Rule 3(1) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments (Lease of Agricultural Land) Rules 2003.
Till then, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner
from the subject land. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 30-08-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date :30.8.2024
Gvl
