IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11349 of 2008 Between: P.Panduranga Raju, S/o. Late P.Kotam Raju,Hindu, R/o. Gosala Village,Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Temple, Indrakeeladri,Vijayawada,Krishna District, Rep by Executive Officer, 2 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I,Kakinada, E.G.District. 3 The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the records from the respondents No.2 by setting aside the order dated 28.2.2007 vide Appeal No.100/2006 by confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent dt.24-5-2004 vide Rc.No.B3/3958/04. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VENKATADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: V.T.M.PRASAD,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} O R D E R: The petitioner is a tenant in respect of Ac.4.72 cents of land in R.S.Nos.89/5 and 92/5 situated in Gosala village, Hamlet of Vijayawada, Krishna District. The 1st respondent-Temple is the owner of the land in question. In the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court holding that the provisions of the Andhra Area Tenancy Act does not apply to the lands held by religious institutions, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, the 3rd respondent herein, with a prayer to declare him as landless poor. Through his order, dated 24.5.2004, the 3rd respondent declared him as landless poor. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent-Temple filed an Appeal No.100 of 2006 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, the 2nd respondent herein. The appeal was allowed, vide order, dated 28.2.2007. Consequently, the 1st respondent initiated steps for resumption of the land. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri B.Venkatadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is a tenant of the land in question for a period of about three decades and there is no basis for the 2nd respondent to reverse the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the other hand submit that the land is a part of urban agglomeration of Vijayawada and having regard to its value the petitioner cannot be said to be landless poor. It is further pleaded that the 2nd respondent applied the relevant parameters and no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by him. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with a prayer to declare him as landless poor. Such a declaration would entitle him to continue as tenant and for a preferential treatment in the matter of renewal of leases. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, 3rd respondent herein passed an order dated 24.5.2004 declaring that the petitioner is a landless poor. The appeal preferred by the 1st respondent- Temple was allowed. It is not in dispute that the land is part of urban agglomeration of Vijayawada. Further, this Court held that the land which is the subject matter of lease as well as the other lands held by a lessee must be taken into account for determination of the status of the landless poor. If the value of the land as well as the other parameters are taken into account, the petitioner cannot be said to be a landless poor. The 2nd respondent has undertaken extensive discussion and by applying the parameters, arrived at a correct conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to the landless poor. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. By operation of the relevant provisions of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the lease in favour of the petitioner stood terminated. In case the 1st respondent-Temple intends to grant fresh lease in respect of the land in question, auction has to be conducted and the petitioner can also participate therein, and he can also be extended preferential right of being awarded the lease even if he is not the highest bidder provided he gives willingness to pay the amount which is offered as highest bid. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the order, dated 28.2.2007 in Appeal 100 of 2006 and by directing that in case no fresh lease has been granted in favour of any third party as yet the case of the petitioner for grant of fresh lease shall be considered in case he emerges as the highest bidder or he is prepared to pay the amount that is offered by the highest bidder. No costs. ______________ 28.05.2008 bcj