IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14239 of 2003 Between: M.Ramachandra Reddy S/o. Venkata Ramana Reddy R/o. H.No.1-2-109, Pragathi Nagar Peddapally Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Peerson in Management, Sri Goshala Samastha, Station Road, Peddapally Karimnagar District. 2 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments C/o. Rajarajeshwari Kalyana Mandapam, Near Court, Karimnagar. .....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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the issuance of impugned Order bearing No.8/8.G.S./2003, dated 20.5.2003 of the fist respondent as arbitrary and illegal and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.14239 of 2003 ORDER The petitioner herein claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.7.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.100 ( Old Sy.No.90) situated in Peddapally village, Sultanabad Taluq, Karimnagar District. It is stated that the said land was purchased by this father in his name under a registered sale deed dated.04-12-1958 and since then the same has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. It is also claimed that the petitioner’s vendor was granted permission vide proceedings dated.08-08-1958 under Section.47 of Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act,1950 for effecting the sale in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner’s father while making a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Buildings) Act,1973 included the land in question also and after considering the same the land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli by order dated.29-11-1975 in C.C.Nos.P/316/75 & P/443/75 held that the land held by the family unit was less than the ceiling area and there was no excess land. The name of the petitioner was also entered in the revenue records and pattadar pass book was issued in his favour. While so, the 1st respondent issued notice dated.20-05-2003 under Rule.5(1) of the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act,1987 (for short “the Act”) stating that the lease in respect of agricultural land in respect of Sy.No.100 to an extent of Ac.7.38 guntas stood cancelled with immediate effect and calling upon the petitioner to handover the possession of the lands leased out to him within a period of thirty(30) days. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the title claimed by the 1st respondent is absolutely false and without any basis. It is also contended that since the lands are his own lands and he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same as a rightful owner since 1958, the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner is a lessee and calling upon him to handover the possession is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent claiming that the land in question was donated by Sri Raja Murali Manohar Rao to the 1st respondent-Institution and the petitioner appears to have grabbed the land by creating a false document in his favour. It is also pleaded that as per Mutukam (books of endowments) the lands to an extent of Ac.8.38 guntas in Sy.No.100 and another extent of Ac.1.20 guntas and Ac.2.00 in Sy.Nos.708 and 525 situated in Peddapalli were shown as lands belonging to the 1st respondent-Institution. While disputing the ownership claimed by the petitioner, it is contended that the possession of the petitioner is illegal and therefore he shall be deemed to be an encroacher under the provisions of the Act. It is also contended that in view of the efficacious remedy available under Section.87 of the Act for adjudication of the title claimed by the petitioner, the present writ petition cannot be maintained. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen, there is a serious dispute with regard to title in respect of the land in question. Whereas the petitioner claims that it is his own land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, the 1st respondent contends that the said land belongs to the 1st respondent-Institution by virtue of a gift made by Sri Raja Murali Manohar Rao. It is also alleged by the 1st respondent that the petitioner is an encroacher. If that be so the 1st respondent-Institution could have taken appropriate steps as provided under Sections.83 and 84 of the Act for removal of the alleged encroachments and for recovery of the possession. Instead the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice under Rule.5(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules,2003 made under G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue(Endowments-I) Department dated.11-03-2003 informing the petitioner that the lease held by him stood cancelled by virtue of Section.82(1) of the Act and calling upon him to hand over the possession forthwith. As per Section.82 of the Act any lease of agricultural land belonging to an Endowment or Institution subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act and held by a person who is not a landless poor shall stand cancelled. Sub-section.(2) of Section.82 of the Act provides for continuation of lease or sale in favour of the tenants who are landless poor persons subject to the terms and conditions specified thereunder. The procedure to be followed for implementation of the said provisions has been prescribed in the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11.03.2003. Rule.5 of the Rules states that a notice in Form No.1 annexed to the said Rules shall be issued to the cultivating tenant who is not a landless poor person duly informing that the lease held by him stood cancelled by virtue of the provision in Section.82(1) of the Act and calling upon him to handover the vacant possession. Thus it is clear that the issuance of notice under Rule.5 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11.03.2003 can be issued only to a lessee in whose favour a lease of agricultural land belonging to the Institution or Endowment was subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act. In the case on hand the specific case of the 1st respondent- Institution as pleaded in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner is an encroacher of the land belonging to the Institution. No where it is stated that the petitioner is a lessee and the lease is subsisting as on the date of commencement of the Act. In the circumstances I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section.82 of the Act has no application at all. Consequently the impugned notice issued under Rule.5 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379 dated.11.03.2003 calling upon the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the land in question is illegal and unsustainable. As already expressed above if the petitioner is an encroacher, it is for the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps as provided under the Act for removal of the encroachment and for recovery of the vacant possession but it is not open to recover the possession by issuing a notice under Rule.5 of the Rules. Accordingly the impugned notice is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the rival claims made by the petitioner and the 1st respondent-Institution with regard to the title in respect of the land in question. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 30th December,2008 *TSNR