THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.16273 of 2005 Dated: 18th September, 2006 Between: Penkey Venkata Ramana & 5 others. …..PETITIONERS AND Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, E.G. District and 2 others. ….RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No.16273 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: The auction proposed to be held on 27-7-2005 for grant of leasehold rights of land in an extent of Acs.9.80 cents in Sy.No.376, 378 and 379 in Peddapuram village and mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to Sri Rani Vatsavayi Buchi Seethayamma Choultry, an endowment institution is assailed by this writ petition by the six petitioners. Petitioners claimed to be cultivators of an extent of Ac.9.80 cents belonging to the 3rd respondent endowment institution, a choultry. According to the petitioners their father was a lessee for 40 years and after his demise in 1989, they came into possession of the property as tenants of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent is also accepting rents. The petitioners claimed to be filed A.T.C. 7 of 2001 on the file Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Peddapuram under Section 16 of the A.P Andhra Area Tenancy Act, 1956 to declare them as tenants and for permanent injunction. The petitioners state that the Tenancy Tribunal had declared them to be cultivating tenants. They also assert that the M.R.O, Peddapuram issued a certificate to the effect that they are small farmers. While so, assert the petitioners, the 3rd respondent issued a legal notification on 19-7-2005 proposing to undertake public auction of the lands for grant of future leasehold rights. According to the petitioners, since they are small farmers (land less poor persons) within the meaning of the said expression in Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act), they cannot be dispossessed. On the aforesaid factual platform and legal projections the writ petition is filed. The petitioners did not plead, assert or demonstrate before this Court that they are lawful cultivating tenants of the lands in question. They state that their father was an original lessee and after his demise in 1989 they came into possession of the lands. They did not plead or establish that a public auction was conducted for grant of leasehold rights, that the lease in their favour was approved by the competent authority or a lease deed executed. The mere fact that the 3rd respondent has accepted the amounts paid by them as constituting rents for the lands in question would not elevate the status of the petitioners from that of encroachers to lawful cultivating tenants. The expression-cultivating tenants in Section 82 of the Act must be construed as tenants cultivating lands of endowment institution in accordance with the substantive and procedural discipline by which the lands of endowment institutions could be alienated including by grant of a lease. Clandestine or Sub-rosa understanding between the endowment officers or managers of endowment institutions and private citizens cannot be elevated by the status of lawfully entered leases. In Budhan Singh Vs. Babi Bux [1] the expression “held” in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 fell for consideration. The Supreme Court elucidated the meaning of the expression “held” in the following telling passages: 11. It is true that according to the dictionary meaning the word “held” can mean either a lawful holding or even a holding without any semblance of a right such as holding by a trespasser. But the real question is as to what is the legislative intent? Did the Legislature intend to settle the concerned building with a person who was lawfully holding or with any person holding lawfully or otherwise? Mr. Misra contended that there is no justification for us to read into the section the word “lawfully” before the word “held”. According to him, if the Legislature intended that the holding should be a lawful one, it would have said “lawfully held”. He wanted us to interpret the section as it stands. 12. It is true that the Legislature could have used the word “lawfully held” in place of the word “held” in Section 9 but as mentioned earlier, one of the dictionary meanings given to the word “held” is “lawfully held”. In Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2nd Edn.), it is stated that in legal parlance the word “held” means to possess by “legal title”. In other words, the word “held” is technically understood to mean to possess by legal title. Therefore, by interpreting the word “held” as “lawfully held”, we are not adding any word to the section. We are merely spelling out the meaning of that word. It may further be seen that the section speaks of all buildings ….. within the limits of an estate, belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person…… The word “belonging” undoubtedly refers to legal title. The words “held by an intermediary” also refer to a possession by legal title. The words “held by tenant” also refer to holding by legal title. In the sequence mentioned above, it is proper to construe the word “held” in Section 9 when used in relation to the words “other person” as meaning “lawfully held” by that person. That interpretation flows from the context in which the word “held” has been used. We have earlier mentioned that the said interpretation accords with justice. As pointed out in Budhan Singh supra the object of every legislation is to advance public welfare. The entire legislative process is influenced by consideration of justice and reason which constitute the core of legislative intent in every piece of legislation. Where a construction operates harshly, ridiculously or in any other manner contrary to prevailing conceptions of justice and reason then an appropriate construction must be put upon the language or the expression used in the legislation. Section 82 of the Act declares any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act to have stood cancelled except where it was in favour of a landless poor person, notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force. A separate package of benefits is carved out in respect of leasehold rights of an agricultural land under cultivation by landless poor persons as defined in sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the Act. Sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the Act defines the expression landless poor person. The benefits under Section 82 of the Act are not available to all landless poor person in the state. They are available to such land less poor persons as have been lessees of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed to any Hindu religious institution or endowment which is governed by the provisions of the Act. Having regard to the limited class of beneficiaries on whom the benefits under Section 82 (2) have been conferred by the Act, the interpretation and conclusion is compelling that the legislatively identified class cannot be extended by putting upon expression cultivating tenant or lessee or agricultural land of Hindu Religious Institutions or Endowments a meaning that extends the class of beneficiaries beyond was intended by the legislature. Endowments are made by private individuals or institutions for the benefit of Hindu religious institutions or charitable endowments, but not to the State nor is endowed in favour of endowment officers. Endowment officers including the managers of Hindu religious institutions or charitable endowments exercise supervisory and regulatory functions in a fiduciary capacity to ensure good and efficient management of religious and charitable institutions governed by the provisions of the Act. It is to keep the exercise of power and discretion by such regulators within check and to combat a possible extravagant or illegal exercise of power, that the Act and the Statutory rules have made clear and explicit provisions for grant of leases conditioned by requirement such as a conduct of public auction normally as also approval of lease by a next higher level in the hierarchy of the department. These checks and balances statutorily ordained have been enacted to prevent arbitrary, irrational or nepotistic exercise of power and are therefore mandatory, being in public interest. No lease granted in transgression of the legislative enactment can be construed a lease in the eye of law and any person in the occupation of endowment land except on a lease lawfully entered into can claim to be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act nor can claim the benefits available to the landless poor persons under Section 82 of the Act. The petitioners did not satisfy a single requirement of any of the above indicia. They can neither be considered to be lessees nor cultivating tenants nor landless poor persons within the meaning of the Act. The petitioners therefore have no locus standi to resist conduct of a public auction of agricultural lands of the 3rd respondent choultry for grant of leasehold rights of its lands. The only right or legitimate expectation of the petitioners is to bid at such public auction as may be conducted quoting a competitive bid and try to obtain a lease by lawful, transparent and statutorily recognized means. On the analysis above, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 28- 7-2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.20690 of 2005 stands dissolved forthwith. No costs. ______________________ (GODA RAGHURAM,J) Date:18the September, 2006. GRK [1] AIR 1970 S C 1880