IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19267 of 2008 Between: Merla Kesava Murthy, S/o. late bhushanam, Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner , Endowment Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District., 3 Sri. Uma Kamandeleswara Swamyu, rep by its Manager, Ryali, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Appeal No.260/2007 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada and consequently set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dated 23.06.2007 in M.A.No.1278/2007 as the same is contrary to Sec.82(2) of Act 30/87 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19267 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant in respect of Ac.2.05 cents of land in R.S.No.68/2, owned by Sri Umakamandaleswara Swamy 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, 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.260 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner before the ﬁrst respondent was also rejected on 23.07.2008. 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 whose behalf a caveat is ﬁled, on the other hand, submits that 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 also comes within 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.2.05 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. Admittedly, the petitioner does not hold any lease, for a period of six years prior to 1987, granted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in several cases, observed that mere continuance of a person, in possession of the land even by paying rents, cannot be equated to the tenancy, for the purpose of extending the benefit under Section 82 of the Act. 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 Ac.2.05 cents 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 agrees 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. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 05.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19267 of 2008 Date: 05.09.2008 JSU