*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.8520 of 2006 % 30.03.2010 # Vempalli Venkatarami Reddy … Petitioner and $ The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa District and another … Respondents < GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner: L.J. Veera Reddy ^ Counsel for 1st respondent: Government Pleader for Endowments. ^ Counsel for the 2nd respondent: Sri V. Venugopal Rao ? CASES REFERRED: -- HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8520 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is the cultivating tenant in respect of Acs.3-42 cents of land in Sy.No.264 of Thallamapuram village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District, owned by Sri Prasanna Venkateswara Swamy and Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple of the village, the 2nd respondent herein. Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) confers certain benefits upon the existing tenants, in case they are declared as landless poor. The petitioner submitted an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa Town and District, 1st respondent, to declare him as a landless poor. After conducting enquiry and following the prescribed procedure, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 01.01.2004, holding that the petitioner is a landless poor, within the meaning of Section 82 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is declared as a landless poor, the respondents are proposing to conduct auction of leasehold rights and are not offering the property for sale to him. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 1st respondent, and learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. Section 82 of the Act has brought about statutory termination of all the existing leases in respect of the lands held by the Religious and Charitable Institutions, which are governed by the provisions of the Act. There is an exception under Sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the Act. In case a lessee is a landless poor, he is conferred with the benefit of having option to purchase the property at 75% of the prevailing market value of property of similar nature, or to continue as a lessee on payment of 2/3rd of the rent for such land. The 1st respondent is conferred with the power to decide the status of a tenant. The petitioner was, no doubt, declared by the 1st respondent as a landless poor, and thereby, he is entitled for the benefit, under Sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the Act, and Rule 5 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003. 4. The petitioner presses for two demands, namely, the land be sold to him, or in the alternative, he be continued as tenant without conducting auction of the leasehold rights. 5. So far as the first aspect is concerned, the petitioner can exercise his right of pre-emptive purchase, if only the religious institution is willing to sell the property. The mere fact that a tenant is declared as a landless poor, does not clothe him with the right to insist that the property be sold to him, even if the religious institution is not willing to do so. Therefore, the petitioner cannot compel the 2nd respondent to sell the land in his possession to him. It is a different matter that in the event of the 2nd respondent deciding to sell the property, the petitioner would have a preferential right to purchase the same, that too, at 75% of the prevailing market value of property of similar nature. 6. Coming to the second aspect, the petitioner is entitled to continue as tenant on payment of 2/3rd of the lease amount. At least to ascertain that amount, it becomes necessary to conduct auction. Once auction is conducted and the amount that is fetched towards the rent is ascertained, the petitioner would have the option either to continue as tenant by paying 2/3rd of the amount so ascertained, or to vacate it, so that it can be given on lease to some other party. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that: (a) the petitioner shall have the right to purchase the property, in exercise of the right, under Section 82(2) of the Act, if only the 2nd respondent intends to sell the same; and (b) the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to conduct auction of the leasehold rights to ascertain the amount that is fetched as rent. If the petitioner emerges as the highest bidder or if he is willing to pay 2/3rd of the amount that is fetched as rent, the petitioner shall be entitled to be continued as tenant. On his failure to accept such conditions, the lease shall be granted in favour of the highest bidder. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 30th March, 2010. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (b/o) CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8520 of 2006 (Disposed of) 30th March, 2010 CBS