IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 6 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/11/2008 in WP NO : 23376 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Gorrela Suresh, S/o. Ramu, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 Pemchakatla Satyavathi, W/o. Yerrayya, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Duvvi Janakai Kumari, w/o. Sudershana Rao, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 Gorrela Srinivasa Rao, s/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 Bandaru Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Lakshminarayana, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 6 Bandaru Veera Venkata Apparao, S/o.Chandra Rao /o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 7 V.V. Lakshmana rao, s/o. Chandra Rao, /o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 8 S. Prameela Devi, W/o. Satyanarayana, /o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Revenue Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Uma Markendeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Godavari Bund, Rajahmundry, East Godvari District, Rep by its Executive Officer 4 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 The Tahsildar, Rajahmundry Urban, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 6 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 7 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 8 A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Rep by its District Manager, Kakinada. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.LAKSHMANA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.11.2008 made in W.P. No. 23376 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this court dismissing the writ petition holding that once an award under the Land Acquisition Act has become final, writ petition filed challenging the same is liable to be dismissed, the writ petitioners preferred this Appeal. The appellants, who claim to be the tenants of an extent of Ac.8.00 in Sy. Nos. 8,9, 10, 216, 317, 149/1 and 316 of Rajahmundry town, belonging to the third respondent Deveasthanam, earlier filed W.P. No.13473 of 2001 when the Devasthanam sought to evict them and by an order dated 26.2.2002, this court disposed of writ petition recording the submission made on behalf of the Devasthanam counsel that they would not proceed with the matter except in accordance with law. Thereafter, appellants further filed W.P. No. 22956 of 2006 resisting the proposal of the Government to acquire the lands for allotment of house sites to weaker sections and this court by an order dated 8.11.2006 disposed of the writ petition recording the submissions made on behalf of the Government that there was no proposal to acquire the land. Subsequently, the Government sought permission of the court by filing WP MP No. 5257 of 2008 in WP No. 10547 of 2006 to allot alternative lands at a nearby place to the Devasthanam in lieu of the land belonging to it, which was allowed by this court. Thereafter, assailing the notification dated 31.7.2008 issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Collector, East Godavari District, proposing to acquire Ac.7-75 cents in Sy. No. 8/1 of Hakimpeta village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, belonging to the Devastgaban, along with other lands, the appellants filed WP No. 17462 of 2008, which was disposed of on 12.8.2008 permitting the appellants to submit their objections under Sec. 5-A of the Act and the fourth respondent was directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders thereon and till such time, status quo was granted. Thereafter, Sec. 5-A enquiry was conducted and eventually an award came to be passed on 12.8.2008 whereby, the Devasthanam was allotted different extents of land elsewhere in lieu of the acquired land. The appellants contend that they came to know of the passing of award only on 10.10.2008 and challenged the same on the ground that they being tenants, its acquisition, would affect their livelihood. The learned Single Judge on facts and on application of Sec. 82(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, has held that consequent on Act 30 of 1987, which came into force with effect from 23.5.1987, the lease in favour of the appellants stood cancelled and their status has changed to trespassers from that of lessees and as such they are not entitled for statutory protection. The learned Single Judge referring to the order in WPMP No.5257 of 2008 in WP No. 10547 of 2006 passed by a Division Bench of this court, has observed that since permission was accorded to the Government to provide alternative land to the Devasthanam, at a different place in lieu of the acquired land, an award came to be passed after the Government exercised its powers of eminent domain, no orders contrary thereto can be passed. The learned Single Judge further refused to grant the relief in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008(2) SCALE 271, holding that once an award became final, writ petition filed assailing the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioners. On behalf of the appellants similar contentions are sought to be raised before this Court, which were raised before the learned Single Judge, more particularly claiming statutory protection inasmuch as they are tenants of the acquired land. The learned Single Judge on application of Sec. 82(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 has held that the Act and Rules made thereunder prescribe a procedure for a person to be declared as a landless poor. It is not even the case of the appellants that they are landless poor, leave alone they are lessees, after passing of the award. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in holding that consequent on Act 30 of 1987, which came into effect from 23.5.1987, the lease, in favour of the appellants stood cancelled and their status is no more as a tenant and, therefore, they have no right to continue their possession inasmuch as the land vested with the Government in view of the acquisition irrespective of their hardship, as sought to be contended on their behalf by the learned counsel. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there are suitable government lands in the vicinity of the acquired lands does not also deserve consideration in view of the power of eminent domain of the Government. Having gone through the impugned order, we do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy January 27, 2009 MAS