THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27829 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is the tenant, over an extent of Ac.1- 80 cents of agricultural land, in Survey No.232 of Kaspa Pentapadu village of West Godavari District. The land is owned by Sri Venugopalaswamy and Anjaneya Swamy Temple of that village. Up to the year 1989, the petitioner was paying the makta, at 6½ bags of paddy. The Temple ﬁled A.T.C.No.173 of 1989, before the Special Oﬃcer-cum-District Munsif, Tadepalligudem, for ﬁxation of fair rent. The ATC was allowed and the makta was ﬁxed at 11½ bags. A.T.A. No.24 of 1995 ﬁled by the petitioner, in the Court of District Judge, Eluru, was allowed, on the ground that the Tenancy Court has no jurisdiction, in respect of the lands held by the Institution, covered by Act 30 of 1987. The petitioner states that on the basis of the order in ATC No.173 of 1989, the Temple authorities have maintained the account in the DCB Register, by mentioning the makta at 11½ bags up to the years 1999 and 2002, though it was liable to be revised, in view of the orders in A.T.A. The 3rd respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner was irregular, in paying the makta. It is also stated that after she was declared as landless poor by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, through order dated 20.7.2003, the petitioner herself oﬀered to pay the makta, at 18 bags, per acre per year, and in that view of the matter, the demand of 11½ bags per acre per year, cannot be said to be excessive, even assuming that the order in the ATC is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very basis for mentioning and enhancing the figure in the DCB register was only the order in the ATC, and once it was set aside by the appellate court, it was liable to be revised. The petitioner was continued as tenant, by paying very meager makta. Obviously when the petitioner refused to enhance it, the 3rd respondent approached the Special Oﬃcer, under the Andhra Tenancy Act. Makta was enhanced and the order of the Special Oﬃcer was set aside by the appellate court. After some amount of litigation, it emerged that the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act, do not apply to the lands covered by Act 30 of 1987. There would have been some basis for the petitioner to complain about the payment of makta, at the rate of 11½ bags per acre per year, had it been a case where the earlier makta was ﬁxed on the basis of any negotiated settlement and scientiﬁc assessment. The petitioner herself realized that the land is double crop fertile land, and on her own accord, she oﬀered makta at 18 bags per acre per year. What she was paying earlier was not even 1/3rd. Since the makta is in the form of produce, the rate of it would hardly have any role to play. In a way, it can be said that the petitioner has enriched herself, at the cost of the Institution. This court is not inclined to grant any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 16th September 2008 PAN