THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9048 OF 2003 DATED 23RD JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Chilukuri Satyanarayana and another. …Petitioners And State of A.P., Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9048 OF 2003 ORDER: Notices dated 17.04.2003 in Form-1 were issued by Sri Umasomeswara Swamy Temple, Elamanchili, under Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 2003’) informing the first petitioner that his lease in respect of its agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.7.77 cents in R.S.Nos.20/6 and 20/3 of Elamanchili Village, West Godavari District, stood cancelled under Section 82(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1987’) and calling upon him to hand over possession of the said lands under threat of eviction as per the provisions of the said Act. These notices were challenged in the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first petitioner died and his son came on record as the second petitioner. By virtue of the interim suspension of the impugned notices granted by this Court on 06.05.2003, the petitioners continued in possession of the leased lands. It was the case of the first petitioner that he was a protected tenant of the temple for the past 40 years and that he had continuously paid the lease amounts due to it without committing default. However, by operation of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1987 his lease stood cancelled leading to the issuance of the impugned notices. The first petitioner however sought to escape the rigor of the statutory provision claiming that his protected tenancy rights could not be defeated. Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the second petitioner, submitted that his client was willing to pay enhanced rentals as deemed fit and proper and therefore the temple should consider extension of the lease in his favour. The Executive Officer of the respondent temple filed his counter stating that the petitioner could not claim any tenancy rights in view of the amendment of Section 82 of the Act of 1987 by Amendment Act 27 of 2002, whereby Section 82(5) was inserted and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 were made inapplicable to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment. He further stated that in the light of the statutory provisions in the Act of 1987, the first petitioner’s lease stood cancelled and that the second petitioner could not claim any rights under the lease earlier held by his father. Though the matter is coming up for hearing upon the vacate stay petition filed by the respondent temple, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel. As the first petitioner held a lease of agricultural dry lands in excess of 5 acres, it is clear that he cannot aspire to the status of a ‘landless poor person’ in terms of the first explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987. Further, after the promulgation of the Rules of 2003, issuance of a notice under Rule 5(1) thereof to a cultivating tenant, other than a landless poor person, informing him that his lease stood cancelled by virtue of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1987, as was done in this case, cannot be said to be illegal. In terms of Section 82(5) of the Act of 1987, which was introduced in the statute with effect from 26.08.2002 under Amendment Act 27 of 2002, tenancy laws have no application to leases of land belonging to religious or charitable institutions/endowments. The gravamen of the petitioner’s claim that he would be entitled to protection under the tenancy laws therefore stands demolished. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondent temple in issuing a notice in terms of the statutory rules cannot be said to be illegal or irregular warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners have already had the benefit of prolonging their leasehold rights over the subject lands in spite of the statutory determination thereof under Section 82(1) of the Act of 1987. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The second petitioner shall deliver the possession of the subject lands to the respondent temple within thirty (30) days from today failing which the respondent temple would be at liberty to take necessary action for his eviction under Sections 84 and 85 of the Act of 1987. The respondent temple would then be at liberty to lease out the subject lands in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003. In the light of this final order, no further orders are required in the miscellaneous petitions which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 23RD JUNE, 2011. VGSR/PGS