IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11492 of 2005 Between: Vatsavai Konda Raju … Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, West Godavari District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Endowments This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11492 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside notice dated 28.04.2005 of respondent No.2 issued in Form-I under Rule 5(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules’), whereby while declaring that the petitioner’s lease stood cancelled, he was asked to vacate the land in question. Under Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) lease of agricultural lands 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. However, under Section 82(2) of the Act, if the lessees are able to show that they are landless poor persons and holding lease for not less than six years continuously, they are entitled to exercise an option of purchasing the property, subject to the terms contained therein. There is no material filed by the petitioner to show that he filed an application under Rule 3 of the Rules before respondent No.1 to hold that he is a landless poor person. Unless the petitioner gets declared as landless poor person, the right under Section 82(2) of the Act would not accrue to him. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice. While dismissing this writ petition, the petitioner is permitted to file an application under Rule 3 of the Rules before respondent No.1, if not already filed. If such an application is received by respondent No.1, he shall dispose of the same expeditiously. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.14716 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.07.2008 ES