IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.580 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21-05-2008 in W.P.No.11166 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court) Between: Donthireddy Sambi Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, R/o. Tadepalli Village & Mandal, Guntur District. ... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. 4 Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Polakampadu Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, adopted By Sri. Durgamalleswara Swamy Temple, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, rep by its Executive Officer, ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: G.P., Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr. V.T.M. Prasad The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per RSR, J) This writ appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by the original petitioner in W.P.No.11166 of 2008, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 21-05-2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.14498 of 2008. 2. The appellant claims to be lessee of agricultural land belonging to fourth respondent-temple. Leases for agricultural lands belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution, other than those held by small farmers, are cancelled by virtue of Section 82(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (‘the Act’ for brevity). The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, after conducting enquiry with regard to the claim of the appellant, by order dated 15-10-2003, determined that the appellant is a cultivating tent of Ac.0.57 cents of dry land belonging to fourth respondent-temple and is a landless poor person as defined under Section 82(2) of the Act. As against the said order, fourth respondent-temple filed appeal before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, who, by the order impugned in the writ petition, allowed the said appeal. The appellate authority has recorded a finding that there is no proof of lease, particularly, for the preceeding six years in favour of the appellant herein so as to extend the benefit contemplated under Section 82 of the Act and allowed the appeal. In the writ petition, appellant herein questioned the order of the appellate authority. 3. Pleading that he is in possession of the land in question, appellant sought interim directions against the respondents herein not to dispossess him from the said land. However, the learned single Judge, on perusal of the proceedings by which possession was already taken by the temple, refused to grant the relief as sought for. However, the learned single Judge observed that in case the respondents intend to grant any leasehold rights of the said land for agriculture, they shall consider the case of the appellant on priority basis. 4. In this appeal, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is the lessee of the temple land and he is a small farmer and without following the due procedure, he cannot be dispossessed from the land in question. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent-temple, that the property in question is within the urban limits and possession of the same has already been taken from the appellant and the same is being utilized for the purpose of constructing choultries by collecting donations from various donors. 6. Whether the appellant is a small farmer or not and the validity of the findings recorded by the appellate authority are matters which are to be considered at the stage of final disposal of the writ petition. In view of the findings recorded by the appellate authority that except claiming possession, there was no proof of lease of the said land in favour of the appellant, and particularly in view of the submission made by learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent-temple that possession of the said land has already been taken and the same is being utilized for public purpose, namely, for construction of choultries, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 7. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. 8. Hearing of the writ petition is expedited. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 18, 2008 GRR/MRR