IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10576 of 2005 Between: V.Seetharamaswamy. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. Kavita Gottipati for Sri M.Prabhakara Rao. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Endowments for R.1 to R.4. Sri S.Ravi Raj for Sri V.T.M. Prasad for R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.5 in issuing notice dated 12-4-2005 in Form No.I read with Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endowment-IV) Department, dated 24-5-2003 as unconstitutional and ultra vires of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) and set aside the same. The petitioner also sought for a consequential declaration that the petitioner is entitled to hold the land admeasuring Ac.5.15 cents situated in Koduru village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District, on enhanced lease amount. Heard Smt.Kavita Gottipati, counsel representing Sri M.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri S.Ravi Raj, counsel representing Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The petitioner claims that he had been the lessee of Ac.5.15 cents of land in R.S.No.335 of Koduru village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District, belonging to respondent No.5. He is aggrieved by notice dated 12-4-2005 issued by respondent No.5, by which the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the above mentioned land after clearing the arrears of Maktha to the extent of 161 bags from the year 2002-03 to 2004-05. In the affidavit the petitioner averred that unless the respondents initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, the petitioner cannot be compelled to hand over possession of the said land. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Manager of respondent No.5-Institution it is averred that the lease period in favour of the petitioner had expired by 2004-05 and, hence, notice, as contemplated under Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 was issued to the petitioner on 12-4-2005 to deliver possession. It is also stated that the petitioner does not fall under the category of landless poor person within the meaning of Section 82 of the Act, and, hence, he is not entitled to continue to be in possession in the absence of any lease granted in his favour. It is further stated that if the petitioner does not hand over possession, then the necessity of following the procedure prescribed under Sections 84 to 86 of the Act would arise. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner does not have any legal right to continue to be in possession, the respondents cannot evict the petitioner without following due process of law. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that as the petitioner’s tenure of lease has, admittedly, expired, he has no right to be in possession of the property in question. All that respondent No.5 has done is to issue the impugned notice to hand over possession consequent on expiry of the lease period and clear the arrears. I do not, therefore, see any illegality in respondent No.5 issuing such a notice. The petitioner, who squatted on the property, after expiry of the lease period, is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in the absence of any semblance of right, whatsoever, to hold possession after expiry of the lease period. Though in the impugned notice it is specifically mentioned that the arrears of lease to the extent of 161 bags are due from the petitioner, there is no whisper about the said statement. The petitioner, however, filed a xerox copy of the purported receipt showing payment of Rs.27,210/- towards part of the lease amount. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is standing crop raised by the petitioner and that he may be permitted to harvest the same before the land is handed over to respondent No.5. On the above-mentioned facts, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if respondent No.5 is permitted to harvest the standing crop in the presence of the petitioner and adjust the sale proceeds of the crop towards the arrears payable to the 5th respondent-Institution. After such adjustment, if any amounts are found payable to the petitioner, respondent No.5 shall pay the same to him. Conversely, if the value of the sale proceeds is not sufficient to satisfy the arrears, respondent No.5 is permitted to recover the same from the petitioner through due process of law. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is dismissed. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21-07-2008 MNR