THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2507 OF 2007 Dated: 15-09-2011 Between: Maddukuri Venkata Rao ... PETITIONER AND Annapurna Visweswara Swamy Temple, rep., by its Manager, Ballipadu, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari District and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2507 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 15-12-2006 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone- I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, the 3rd respondent herein in Appeal No. 147 of 2006 whereby he has confirmed the order dated 29-06-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Eluru, the 2nd respondent herein in ref.No. Rc/A4/4795/2003. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 1st respondent – temple is a classified temple under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and is under the administrative control of the 2nd respondent and managed by its manager. The 1st respondent – temple is the owner of the land in an extent of Acs.4.89 cents in Survey No.21/1 of Ballipadu Village, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. By virtue of amendment to Section 82 of the Act, any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall stand cancelled except in cases of landless poor persons. In respect of landless poor persons, they are given preferential right to purchase such lands for a consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and they were allowed to pay the sale consideration in four equal instalments. If a small farmer is not willing to purchase the land, he will be continued as tenant provided he agrees to pay two-third of the market rent for similarly situated lands. When the 1st respondent issued notice dated 17-04-2005 to the petitioner under Rule 5(1) of the Lease of Agricultural Land Rules asking him to handover vacant possession of the land in question which is in his possession within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice, he filed an application before the 2nd respondent on 07-05- 2005 claiming that he is a landless poor person within the meaning of Section 82 of the Act and sought for a declaration as such. On the application filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and as he failed to procure valid lease for a period of six years prior to the commencement of the Act, the 2nd respondent by order dated 29-06- 2006 rejected his application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 3rd respondent which was also dismissed confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in question from the last 28 years on lease which was renewed from time to time and the present lease amount is Rs.46,000/- per annum. Except the land in question, the petitioner neither owns nor is in possession of any land. It is also contended that though from the last 28 years the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and cultivating the same as a tenant, his claim to declare him as a landless poor person was rejected without considering the material available on record. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was cultivating the land of the temple without any approval orders of the competent authority and that after the expiry of the lease, he filed an application on 29-04-2002 before the 1st respondent who forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 10-06-2002 granted lease in favour of the petitioner by way of private negotiation for the year 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 and after expiry of the lease period, the 1st respondent has issued notice in Form-I to the petitioner asking him to handover possession of the land within 30 days. It is further stated that in order to claim the declaration as a landless poor person, such person must be in possession of the land for not less than six continuous years as on the date of enactment of the Act and as there is no valid lease from the competent authority, the petitioner is not entitled for declaration as prayed for by him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent – temple and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the orders of the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent makes it clear that though the petitioner claims lease prior to six years of the commencement of the Act, there is no material placed by him to prove that a valid lease exists in his favour which is approved by the competent authority. Mere long standing possession as a tenant by itself is no ground to seek declaration under Section 82 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot fit into the category of landless poor person within the meaning of Section 82 (2) of the Act and is not entitled for the declaration that he is a landless poor person. The respondent – authorities have recorded the finding that the petitioner is not entitled for declaration as a landless poor person on the basis of the material available on record. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15-09-2011 ks