HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.5098 of 2004 Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 Between: Sri Madu Satyanarayana … Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., reb.by its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue (Endowments), Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 3 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.5098 of 2004 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Balaji Medamalli and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records of the second respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments and set aside the order dated 10.02.2004 dismissing the appeal preferred by him against the order of the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 08.01.2004. 3) The petitioner was served with an order dated 08.01.2004 mentioning that the father of the petitioner was in possession of Ac.5.02 cents of dry land belonging to the fourth respondent temple as a cultivating tenant. As the lease stood terminated under Section 82 of the Endowments Act, he is liable to be evicted from the land. The petitioner contended that he is entitled to be recognized as a small farmer and is not liable for eviction. However, an enquiry was conducted by the third respondent and found that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for and the request of the petitioner to allow him to continue as cultivating tenant is rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal No.11 of 2004 before the second respondent-appellate authority and the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by holding that the father of the petitioner was cultivating the land by the date of legislation and as he was holding more than Ac.5.02 cents of the land as cultivating land, the petitioner cannot be treated as landless poor. 4) Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred the present appeal contending that his father was the cultivating tenant since 1979 and he died on 11.07.2002 leaving the petitioner and his two brothers and one sister as legal heirs. The said property is being cultivated by four legal heirs jointly along with an extent of Ac.1.82 cents of their land. Except the said land, there is no other land for cultivation. As the petitioner would be entitled to Ac.1.75 cents of dry land towards his share, he is entitled to be recognized as a small farmer. 5) The petitioner further submitted that in S. Narayana v. State of A.P.[1] a Division Bench of this Court observed that the legislature would have considered under Section 82 of the Endowments Act the persons who are possessing more than 5 acres of land also on par with the persons who are in possession of less than 5 acres of dry land and 2 ½ wet land. Otherwise it would amount to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6) I perused the above said judgment. It is only an observation made, but a finding was not given by the Court while dealing with the other aspects. The mere observation of the High Court cannot be treated as the law laid down by the Courts. The legislature would have thought it appropriate to fix a benchmark to classify the persons who are not eligible for the said benefit. It cannot be treated as discrimination. Since the father of the petitioner died much later to the Act came into force and as the lease stood terminated immediately after the Act came into force, the authorities who passed the orders are justified in holding that the petitioner cannot be treated as landless poor. After going through the entire material, I do not find any merits to interfere with the impugned order. 7) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 05.02.2008 Isn [1] 1990 (1) ALT 237 (DB)