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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11046 of 2008 Between: 1 S.Basavapunnamma, W/o. late Venkatakristnaiah, R/o. Kuchillapadu Village, Vemuru Manadal, guntur district. 2 S.Subba Rao, S/o. late Venkatakristnaiah, R/o. Kuchillapadu Village, Vemuru Manadal, guntur district. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt of AP Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (End-III) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Manager, Sri Malleswaa Swamy Temple, Kuchillapadu Village, Vemuru Manadal, Guntur District. 3 Asst. Commissioner, Endowments dept, Guntur. 4 Regional Joint Commissiner of Endowments, Tirupati. .....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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus suspending the impugned order dt.22.12.2007 passed by the Respondent no.4 while declaring it as invalid unconstitutional, void abinitio. Counsel for the Petitioners:JONNA RAMANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: The husband of the first petitioner was a tenant in respect of Acs.4.00 of land in Sy.Nos.84 and 91, owned by Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple, Kuchillapadu Village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District. Subsequently, the Government has acquired 2 acres out of 4 acres of land. After his death, the petitioners have been cultivating the 2 acres of land. When steps were being taken to terminate the lease and evict the petitioners, they approached the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, the third respondent herein, with a prayer to declare them as landless poor. Vide proceedings, dated 24.03.2005, the third respondent rejected the plea of the petitioners and held that they do not answer the description of landless poor. Appeal No.17 of 2005 preferred by the petitioners before the fourth respondent was also rejected on 22.12.2007. Hence, this Writ Petition. Ms.Jonna Ramani, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondents 3 and 4 have applied improper parameters, while deciding the claim of the petitioners. She contends that the petitioners do 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 they were 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 3 and 4 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, is 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 petitioners, being tenants of 2 acres of land, had approached the third respondent with a prayer to declare them as landless poor. On an examination of the relevant facts, the third respondent recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioners are not landless poor. The said finding was affirmed by the fourth 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 petitioners submits that her clients may be continued as tenants 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 second respondent intends to grant leasehold rights, in respect of 2 acres of land, hitherto held by the petitioners, he shall conduct public auction and it shall be open to the petitioners to participate in the same. Even if they do not emerge as highest bidders, but agreed to pay the rent that is offered by the highest bidder, the respondents shall grant lease to the petitioners, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of, upholding the orders passed by respondents 3 and 4, 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