IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10865 of 2008 Between: Polineti Gopalakrishna S/o.Pullaiah, Hindu R/o.Rayali Atreyapuram(M) E.G Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner Multi-Zone-I Endoments Department Kakinada 2 The Assistant Commissioner Endowments E.G Dist at Rajahmundry 3 The Executive Officer Sri Jaganmohini Kesava and Gopalaswamy Temple,Rayali Atreyapuram(M) E.G Dist .....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 writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the order dt.11-2-2008 in Appeal No.264/2007 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in M.A No.1379/2007 dt.23-6-2007 by not considering the representation field by the petitioner for continuing him as tenant of land measuring ac 0.73 1/2 cents in R.S No.,3 1/2 situated Rayali(V) Atreyapuram(M) E.G Dist as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order and not to dispossession the petitioner being lawful tenant from the schedule land thereby to collect the enhanced makhtas as prevailing in the vicinity of the village. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri V.T.M. PRASAD (SC) The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant in respect of Ac.0.73 ½ cents of land in R.S.No.31/2, owned by Sri Jaganmohini Kesava and Gopalaswamy Temple, Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. When steps were being taken to terminate the lease and evict the petitioner, he had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, East Godavari, the second respondent herein, with a prayer to declare him as landless poor. Vide proceedings, dated 23.06.2007, the second respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner and held that he does not answer the description of landless poor. Appeal No.264 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent was also rejected on 11.02.2008. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondents 1 and 2 have applied improper parameters, while deciding the claim of the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner does not hold any land in excess of the limit stipulated under the Rules framed under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), and still he was not extended the benefit of landless poor. Learned Standing Counsel for the Temple, on the other hand, submits that the concurrent findings of fact were recorded by respondents 1 and 2 and no interference is warranted. The question as to whether the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, would apply to the leases in respect of lands held by religious institutions, remained unanswered for several years. In the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court resolved the controversy and held that such lands are not covered by the provisions of the ordinary tenancy laws. Therefore, the tenancy, in respect of lands held by religious institutions, are governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. With a view to protect the interests of landless poor, Rules were framed conferring certain benefits upon them. However, the question as to whether a tenant answers the description of landless poor is to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and an appeal against the said finding is provided to the appellate authority. In the instant case, the petitioner, being a tenant of Ac.0.73 ½ cents of land, had approached the second respondent with a prayer to declare him as landless poor. On an examination of the relevant facts, the second respondent recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner is not a landless poor. The said finding was affirmed by the first respondent. No error of law or fact is pointed out. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client may be continued as tenant on payment of revised rents. In this regard, it needs to be observed that the Act and the Rules prescribe the procedure for grant of leasehold rights, in respect of agricultural lands held by the institutions. Public auction is the recognized mode of determining the highest bidder. In case, the third respondent intends to grant leasehold rights, in respect of one acre of land, hitherto held by the petitioner, he shall conduct public auction and it shall be open to the petitioner to participate in the same. Even if he does not emerge as highest bidder, but agreed to pay the rent that is offered by the highest bidder, the respondents shall grant fresh lease to the petitioner, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of, upholding the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, but with the observation made above. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:22.05.2008 Note:Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ/KDL