THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.14113 of 2000 Dated:14.02.2008 Between: Kavureddi Seethamma, And another. …Petitioners and The Land Acquisition Officer – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District, and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.14113 of 2000 ORDER: The first petitioner is statedly a cultivating tenant in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.07 cents in Survey Nos.116/1 and 117/1 situated at Pentapadu Village and Mandal in West Godavari District. The land belongs to Sri Bala Venkateswara Swami Vari Devasthanam, fourth respondent herein. The land was sought to be acquired and having come to know the same, the first petitioner filed instant Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity). During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the first petitioner died, and her son, Kavireddi Lakshmana Rao, is brought on record as the second petitioner. The first petitioner contends that being a cultivating tenant, she is a person interested, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings taken out behind her back are illegal. Having come to know about the proceedings, she appears to have procured a copy of the notice under Section 9(3) of the Act and filed the instant Writ Petition, inter alia, contending that there is no necessity for acquiring the land and that even if such necessity exists alternate lands are available in the Village. She also opposed the acquisition on the ground that being a cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.1.07 cents, she is a small farmer and acquisition is barred. A counter affidavit is filed, inter alia, stating that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 16.02.1999 and that the declaration was issued on 17.02.1999. Notices under Section 9(1) and (3) and 10(1) of the Act were issued to the Temple and when the award enquiry was being taken up, the petitioner obtained stay on 24.08.2000, and therefore, award could not be passed. It is also alleged that being a tenant, the first petitioner is a person interested to challenge the acquisition and if she has any right, she could claim compensation by participating in the enquiry. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised the following grounds. Under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Endowments Act, for brevity), the first petitioner being a small farmer is entitled to protect her tenancy, and therefore, the Temple cannot evict her from the land unless due process contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (the Rules, for brevity) is followed. According to him even if the land is acquired by the Government, she continues to be the tenant of the Temple. The submission cannot be accepted for two reasons. First, Section 82 of the Endowments Act as amended by Act No.30 of 1987 puts an end to the tenancy by declaring that any lease of agricultural land given by a charitable/religious institution shall stand cancelled. If the petitioners are landless poor persons as defined in the explanation of subsection (2) of Section 82 of the Endowments Act, they would be certainly entitled to protection under Section 82(2) of the Endowments Act, provided they obtain declaration under Rule 3 of the Rules to the effect that they are landless poor person. As of now, no such declaration stands in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners without any declaration cannot seek refuse under Section 82 of the Endowments Act. Secondly, even if the right of the petitioners to continue with the tenancy being landless poor persons under Section 82 of the Endowments act, the same does not divest the State from exercising power of “eminent domain” to acquire the land belonging to the Temple. A charitable/religious institution (Temple) is a body corporate and juristic person. There is no law that a land belonging to juristic person cannot be acquired under the Act. Insofar as the remedy of apportionment of compensation of land acquired is concerned, the law is well settled. I n W.P.No.1985 of 2002, dated 13.02.2008, after referring to decisions in State of A.P., v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi[1], Samadhi Narayana v. State of A.P.,[2] Bammidi Jagannayakulu v. District Collector, Srikakulam[3], Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja[4], Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd.,[5] and A. Appala Reddy v. Spl. Tahsildar[6], this Court laid down as below. Thus, if a tenant is able to show either under common law, statute law or constitutional law that he has sufficient subsisting enforceable interest to claim compensation, there cannot be any objection for considering such claim. To similar effect are the following observations of a Division Bench of this Court in A.Appala Reddy v. Spl. Tahsildar (supra). A tenant is a ‘person interested’ as defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has a right to object to the acquisition and/or to the quantum of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer or the Court, as the case may be, has to ascertain the value of his right in the property acquired and compensate him in that behalf. No hard and fast Rule can be laid down, nor can any universally applicable, formula, be evolved in the matter of apportionment between the owner and the tenant. It all depends upon the content of the tenant’s right(s). The terms of the lease may have to be looked into for ascertaining the content and value of his right(s) and if he is a statutory tenant, the terms of the statute have to be looked to for the purpose. An over-all view has got to be taken and the proportion of their respective interests determined. (emphasis supplied) The above principle applies to this case as well. In the result, the Writ Petition, as prayed, cannot be accepted. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the Land Acquisition Officer and participate in the award enquiry. If they are entitled for such compensation the same shall be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.02.2008 vs [1] (2001) 7 SCC 708 [2] 1990 (1) ALT 237 (DB) [3] 1999 (3) ALT 733 [4] (2004) 8 SCC 453 = AIR 2004 SC 3582 [5] (1996) 11 SCC 501 [6] 1978 (2) APLJ 269