IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 9827 of 2008 Between: Tadikonda Koteswara Rao s/o Venkateswarlu, r/o Chavali, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Departments Department Multi Zone-II, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Executive Officer of sri Valeswara Swamy Temple, Chavali, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set a side the order passed in Appeal No.4 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent dated 14-11-2007 by declaring the same as illegal, void and without jurisdiction by treating the petitioner as he was a landless poor tenant as he oﬀered to surrender excess land and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G.DHARMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9827 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.5.40 cents of land situated at Chavali village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District since 22.08.1959. It is not in dispute that the said land belongs to the 3rd respondent-temple. The material on record shows that the 3rd respondent earlier ﬁled A.T.C.No.37 of 1992 before the Special Oﬃcer-cum-Principal Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, seeking eviction alleging that the petitioner had committed default in payment of makta. The said petition was dismissed on 25.11.1996 and the same was conﬁrmed on appeal by the Court of District Judge, Guntur. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 12.4.2003 under Rule 5(1) of the Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.03.2003 informing the petitioner that the lease in his favour stood cancelled by virtue of Section 82(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) and, therefore, he should hand over the land in his possession within 30 days, failing which he would be evicted invoking the provisions under Section 84, 85 and 86 of the Act, treating him as an encroacher. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.8907 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 22.06.2004 permitting the petitioner to make an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for declaration of his rights under Section 82(2) of the Act within a period of 30 days and, thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. It was also made clear that till such determination is made by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner should not be evicted, provided the market rent is paid in respect of the land in his possession. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, by order dated 23.3.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner that he is a landless poor on the ground that he is in possession of Ac.5.40 cents of wet land as a cultivating tenant, which is beyond the prescribed limit under Section 82 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. However, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 24.11.2007 conﬁrming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are arbitrary, illegal and to declare that the petitioner is a landless poor tenant. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that since he oﬀered to surrender the excess land by retaining only Ac.2.50 cents, the 1st respondent/appellate authority committed an error in dismissing the appeal without accepting the oﬀer to surrender the excess land. According to the petitioner, if surrender of the excess land as oﬀered by him is accepted, the petitioner is entitled to be declared as landless poor and consequently he is entitled to the benefit of Section 82(2) of the Act. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/temple a counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled stating that apart from the land in question, the petitioner also possessed a building worth about Rs.10.00 lakhs in the same village and that his claim that he is a landless poor is absolutely incorrect and without any basis. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition, submitted that since the petitioner expressed his willingness to surrender the excess land, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have declared him as a landless poor. The scope and object of Section 82 of the Act has been considered by this Court in various decisions and it has been consistently held that the beneﬁt of Section 82(2) of the Act can be extended only to a person coming within the category of landless poor person as deﬁned in the Explanation to the said Section. It is relevant to note that as per the explanation, a person to be a landless poor must not have 2½ acres of wet land or Ac.5.00 of dry land either as a owner or cultivating tenant. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner is a lessee in respect of wet land admeasuring Ac.5.40 cents. Therefore, he does not fall within the deﬁnition of landless poor as defined under the explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act. Merely because the petitioner is willing to surrender the excess land i.e., land over and above Ac.2.50 cents, he cannot be treated as a landless poor person. Such a course of action, being contrary to the object and purport of Section 82(1) of the Act is impermissible. It is also relevant to note that this Court while granting interim stay of dispossession in W.P.M.P.No.12977 of 2008 to the extent of Ac.2.50 cents, made it clear that the same would not entitle the petitioner to claim that he is a landless poor person entitled to the benefits of Section 82 of the Act. In the light of the admitted facts noticed above, the conclusion of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is not a landless poor person does not suﬀer from any infirmity. This Court in Jangili Nagaiah v. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments[1] while concluding that the petitioner therein who was in possession of Ac.7.36 cents of land was not entitled to the beneﬁt of Section 82(2) of the Act, further held that in such circumstances, no determination is required as it is not competent for the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to enlarge the deﬁnition of landless poor person. It was also made clear by this Court that in the event the leased land exceeds the limit prescribed under the explanation, the tenant falls within the enacting provision of Section 82 and his lease shall be cancelled. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 30.10.2008. Kgr [1] 2004 (2) ALT 324