THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.14713 of 2006 DATED: 30.06.2010 Between: Ch. Ankireddy and others .. Petitioners And Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Devasthanam Specific Endowments, Gangavaram Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District, rep. by its Founder Trustee V. Veerabhadraiah and another. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioners claim to be in occupation of the lands belonging to the 1st respondent temple, situated at Inkollu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, as cultivating tenants. They state that, after due enquiry, the 2nd respondent namely Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, declared them as small farmers vide proceedings dated 21.07.2003 and 05.08.2003. They further state that as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), the cultivating tenants have a right to purchase the land in their occupation at 75% of the market rate or in the event they do not opt for purchase, they can be continued as cultivating tenants, if they agree to pay 2/3rd of the market rent. Since the respondent authorities have not offered them to sell the land, they have been paying 2/3rd of market rent per acre and continuing in occupation of the lands as cultivating tenants. While so, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notices dated 29.05.2006 in Form-II under Rule 5 (2) of Lease Rules, framed under Section 82 of the Act, informing them that the temple authorities have no intention to sell the lands and the rent of similarly placed land is Rs.16,393/- per acre, whereas the petitioners are paying only Rs. 8,101/- per acre, and that as per Rules, they can continue as tenants by paying 2/3rd of the market rent and accordingly asked the petitioners to give consent in writing to increase the maktha of the lands to Rs.10,928/- per acre, within 30 days of receipt of notices, or otherwise to handover the possession of the lands on expiry of 30 days and pay all rents due. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned notices are not in accordance with the format of Form-II, annexed to the statutory rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 379 dated 11.03.2003 and that the 1st respondent, who has no power to fix the market rent, has unilaterally fixed the market rent, which is far in excess of the market rent fixed for other similar lands belonging to the temple situated in the very same village, the leasehold right of which were auctioned on 19.05.2006. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, stating that, on 19.05.2006, the Trustee of the 1st respondent temple conducted public auction for leasing out the leasehold rights of some other lands belonging to the temple and the said auction had fetched an amount of Rs.73,000/- per year towards rent, for total extent of Ac.7.98 cents of land, and thus, the institution got an average rent of Rs.9,148/- per acre. It is further stated that the 1st respondent has taken the highest rental value secured in the public auction for similar lands situated in the village and took the 2/3rd of such rental value, for fixing the market rent payable by the petitioners to the institution, as per the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that the notice in Form-II is only an intimation to small farmers regarding sale of land or to obtain their consent for continuing in occupation of the temple lands as cultivating tenants by paying maktha at 2/3rd of market rent and, as the 1st respondent institution has no intention to sell the land, the petitioners were asked to give consent for their continuing as cultivating tenants of the temple lands by paying maktha at 2/3rd of market rent and thus the action of 1st respondent is in the interest of the institution and needs no interference. It is also further stated that, after obtaining consent from the petitioners, the trustee of the Devasthanam will submit a report to the 2nd respondent for approval of the lease in favour of the lessees for a period of three years. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent, by mentioning in the impugned notices that the institution authorities have no intention to sell the land as the same are necessary for the institution’s maintenance, has deviated from the format of Form-II annexed to the Rules framed under the Act, and this apart, the rent fixed for the lands in the impugned notices is very exorbitant. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that, as the subject lands were necessary for the maintenance of the institution, the institution had no intention to sell them and the same was informed to the petitioners, by mentioning about the same in the impugned notices, and as such, the impugned notices issued in Form-II cannot be said to be defective. He reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent regarding fixing of rent for the subject lands, stating that the rent was properly fixed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Though the petitioners contend that the market rent of the subject lands fixed by the 1st respondent is more than the market rent fixed for other similar land belonging to the temple, the same is denied by the 2nd respondent, and it is his specific case that the 1st respondent has taken the highest rental value secured in the public auction for similar lands situated in the village and, based on such rental value, fixed the maktha payable by the petitioners for the lands in their possession and cultivation, as per the provisions of the Act. Since the respondents fixed the rental value of the lands, based on the highest rental value of similar lands belonging to the temple, the rent so fixed by them cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Merely because the notices issued by the 1st respondent in Form-II, make a mention that the institution authorities have no intention to sell the land as the same are necessary for the maintenance of the institution, it cannot be said that they are defective and not in accordance with the format prescribed, and more so when the petitioners failed to point out the prejudice that has been caused to them by reason of such mentioning. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned notices. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 30th June, 2010 IBL