THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15842 OF 2010 Dated: 25 .08.2010 Between: Gadi Bangaramma and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15842 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be in possession of the different extents of lands situated in survey Nos.6/2, 123 and 35/2 situated at Niddam village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District as cultivating tenants. It is stated that the said land belongs to the 2nd respondent temple and that since 1932 families of the petitioners have been cultivating the same. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the auction notice dated 21.04.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent-Temple for grant of lease hold rights in respect of the lands in possession of the petitioners for a term of three years from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2013 is arbitrary and illegal. It is contended that as the petitioners are small farmers and as they have been in possession from the year 1932, it is not permissible to put the lease hold rights of the lands in their occupation to public auction. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Temple a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the lease hold rights were granted to the predecessors of the petitioners initially in the year 1971 to 1976 for enjoying the crop benefits. Though the lease was extended up to 30.06.1995 on enhancement of 25% of the existing lease amount, no further extension was granted as the 1st respondent did not grant approval for renewal of lease hold rights. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued notices on 01.05.2003 under Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules’) made in G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.03.2003 calling upon the petitioners 1, 2 and 6 to hand over the possession of the lands within 30 days, failing which they should be evicted invoking the provisions under Section 84 to 86 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) treating them as encroachers. It is also stated that the auction as proposed under the impugned notice was conducted on 05.05.2010 in which 34 persons had participated and the bid amounts fetched were more than 100 times the rents received during the previous years. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. The material placed before this Court shows that the petitioners were in possession of the lands in question as on the date of the commencement of the Act and the lease in their favour was subsisting as on that date. It is also their specific case that they are landless poor persons. In the circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit under Section 82 of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379 came into force with effect from 13.03.2003 and as per Rule 3, immediately after coming into force of the said Rules, if any cultivating tenant, who claims to be a landless poor person, shall make such claim before the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction and thereupon it has to be decided whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person as defined under Section 82 of the Act after giving a reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant. Sub-rule 3(2) made it clear that if the cultivating tenant does not claim to be a landless poor person, the tenancy would 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. In the instant case though the petitioners were in possession of the lands in question as on 13.03.2003 on which date the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 11.03.2003 came into force, they failed to claim to be a landless poor person before the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction. Admittedly, they made such a claim on 08.07.2010 before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Srikakulam after filing the present writ petition. It is also relevant to note that the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam issued notices to the petitioners in the year 2003 itself under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. After service of the said notices in Form No.1 under Rule 5(1) of the Rules informing that the lease held by the petitioners stood cancelled by virtue of the provisions under Section 82(1) of the Act and calling upon them to hand over the possession of the lands, the petitioners shall be treated as encroachers. Consequently, as held by this Court in N.Mallakanti and others v. Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Gargeyapuram villge[1], it is open to the 2nd respondent temple to recover the possession with police aid under Sections 84 and 85 of the Act. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents in putting the lease hold rights to auction cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 25.08.2010 Ivd [1] 2004 (2) ALD 148