IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11645 of 2005 Between: SRI CHELUKURI SURYANARAYANA, S/o. Venkayya, R/o. Deva Village, Penugopnda Mndal. West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Government of A.P., Endowments Departmetn , Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Departmtent, Government of A.P., Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Departmtent, Kakinada, West Godavari District, 4 Sri Sangameswara & Madanagopala Swamyvari Devasthanam, rep.by its Executive Officer, Tamarada Village, Penugonada Mandal , .....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 Direction, or a Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the Form - I notices issued under Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.379, Rev(Endt-IV) Department, dated 25.2.2005by the 4th respondent, so far as treating the petitioner as an encroacher in the order issued under Sec/83(4) of the Act 30/1987 by invoking Section 84,85,86 as unconstitutional and ultra-virus of section 83 of act 30/1987 and set aside the same and declare that the proposal to evict the petitioner from his schedule land admeasuring Ac.6-73 cents in Sy.No. 87 of Deva Village, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal arbtirary and pass such other order orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking the relief of: “…declaring the Form - I notices issued under Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.379, Rev(Endt-IV) Department, dated 25.2.2005 by the 4th respondent, so far as treating the petitioner as an encroacher in the order issued under Sec/83(4) of the Act 30/1987 by invoking Sections 84,85,86 as unconstitutional and ultra-virus of section 83 of Act 30/1987 and set aside the same and declare that the proposal to evict the petitioner from his schedule land admeasuring Ac.6-73 cents in Sy.No. 87 of Deva Village, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal arbitrary and pass such other order orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case.” By the Form I notice dated 25-02-2005 (the impugned notice) issued under Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003, issued in G.O.Ms.No.379, Rev.(Endowments. I) dated 13- 03-2003 (Rules having been issued in purported Powers under Section 82 read with sub-section (1) of Section 153 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner is informed that the lease in respect of an extent of Acs.6.73 cents of wet land in Sy.No.87 of Deva village, Penugonda Manda, West Godavari District, belonging to the 4th respondent-Devastanam stands cancelled and the leasehold rights in respect of the said lands are proposed to be leased out by the Devastanam in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner was directed to handover the vacant possession of the lands within the time stipulated, failing which proceedings for eviction would be initiated under the provisions of Sections 84 to 86 of the Act, treating the petitioners as encroachers in an order passed under Section 83(4) of the Act. The petitioner assails the impugned notice contending that the Executive Authority of the 4th respondent has no power, authority or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, which inheres jurisdiction for evicting encroachers only on the Assistant Commissioner (Endowments), having jurisdiction. Petitioner additionally contends that neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder explicate any guidelines for determination of the land as wet or dry; that the authorities under the Act are refusing to recognize the entries in the Government records which enumerate the lands as dry or wet; that the authorities are arbitrarily determining the lands as wet or dry exercising arbitrary discretion; and that instead of granting permanent leases to landless poor, the authorities are oﬀering temple lands on lease only for a maximum period of three years, inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner claims to be a landless poor person and therefore, entitled to the beneﬁts under Section 82(1) and (2) of the Act. Explanations I and II under Section 82 of the Act deﬁne the expression “landless poor person”. The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of the Act enable the continuance of a lease in respect of a landless poor person and also inhere a right in such landless poor person, who is a lawful lessee of endowments lands to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy ﬁve percent of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands, so however, that consideration is required to be paid in four equal installments as prescribed. The provisions also enable the sale of the endowment lands in favour of a landless poor tenant to be made otherwise than by tender-cum- public auction. On a holistic and interactive analysis of the provisions enumerated in explanations I and II in Section 82 of the Act, it is clear that the petitioner, who is admittedly cultivating Acs.6.73 of what is described by the 4th respondent as wet land, does not fall within the deﬁnition of either a landless poor person or a small and marginal farmer. A landless poor person is deﬁned to mean a person whose total extent of land, held by him either as owner or cultivating tenant does not exceed two and half acres of wet land or ﬁve acres of dry land and whose monthly income other than such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum and whose residential property exceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be treated as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property. Explanation II deﬁnes a small and marginal farmer as meaning a person, who being a lessee, his holding of lands in excess of 0.25 cents of wet land or Acres 0.50 over and above the ceiling limit of Acres 2.50 wet and Acs.5.00 of dry land, respectively. In case of small and marginal farmers, the Act enables their continuance on lease of endowments lands subject to payment of 2/3rd of the prevailing market rent with a further prescription that excess land held more than the above limit held by such person shall be put to public auction. The petitioner in view of the fact that he is cultivating an extent of Acs.6.73 cents of agricultural land, asserted by the Endowments Department to be wet land, an assertion that is not contested by the petitioner (except by vaguely stating that the authorities have not determined the character of the land as wet or dry in accordance with the Government record), is seen to be disentitled to the beneﬁts under Section 82 of the Act. The petitioner has not chosen to plead that he is otherwise i.e. on account of not having any other income, entitled to be treated as a landless poor person. On the aforesaid analysis, the petitioner cannot lawfully resist eviction consequent on the impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 25-02-2005 nor can he continue in possession of the lands belonging to the 4th respondent-Devastanam. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The ad-interim order of status quo granted on 24-05-2005 in W.P.M.P.No.14877 of 2005 stands hereby dissolved. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J Date: 14-10-2008 KLP