THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 2006 DATED AUGUST, 2011 BETWEEN Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram Village, Represented by its President Revada Kannaiah S/o Late Ramulu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Peddapuram. …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue), Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 2006 O R D E R Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, the petitioner herein, assails the proceedings dated 22.01.2005 of the Assistant Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the fourth respondent, and the appellate order dated 16.09.2005 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District, the third respondent, in Appeal No.19 of 2005 confirming the same, whereby and whereunder it was held that the petitioner Sangham was not eligible to claim benefit under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1987’). The petitioner Sangham seeks a consequential declaration that its members are landless poor persons and that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 82 of the Act of 1987 in respect of the lands held by them on lease belonging to Sri R.V.B.S.Choultry, Peddapuram, the fifth respondent. This Court, by interim order dated 21.06.2007, directed status quo obtaining as on that day as to the nature and possession of the lands in question to be maintained for four weeks. The same was extended by two weeks under order dated 28.08.2007 and by a further period of three weeks under order dated 09.10.2007. Thereafter, when the matter was listed for hearing on 30.04.2008 upon the vacate stay petition filed by the fifth respondent Choultry in WVMP No.1435 of 2008, this Court, taking note of the fact that there was no order existing as on that day, observed that the question of vacating the interim order dated 21.06.2007 did not arise. Thereupon, the petitioner Sangham filed WPMP No.14567 of 2008 seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject lands in Survey Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village pending disposal of the writ petition. By order dated 29.05.2008, this Court again directed status quo obtaining as on that day to be maintained as to the properties in question until further orders. Aggrieved thereby, the fifth respondent Choultry filed Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008. A learned Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 06.08.2008, allowed the said appeal quashing the order of status quo granted by the learned single Judge and directed that the subject lands, after deducting the acquired extent of Ac.31.42 cents in R.S.No.171 of Peddapuram Village, shall be given on lease to the petitioner Sangham upto 30.04.2009 on a total lease rent of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Bench directed that if the possession of the lands in question was not with the petitioner Sangham, the fifth respondent Choultry shall hand over the same to the petitioner Sangham on the following conditions as to payment of the lease rent: i) Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the fifth respondent Choultry on or before 11.08.2008; ii) Rs.50,000/- shall be paid on or before 07.09.2008; iii) Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid on or before 30.04.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner Sangham filed WPMP No.10667 of 2009 in the writ petition to permit it to continue as a tenant in respect of the subject lands admeasuring Ac.106.00 cents in R.S.Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village on the same terms and conditions spelt out in the order dated 06.08.2008 in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008, without prejudice to its rights in the writ petition. By order dated 21.04.2009, this Court ordered the said WPMP on the condition that the petitioner Sangham paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 30.04.2009 as per the order in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008. Having complied with the said direction, the petitioner Sangham claims to have tendered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the fifth respondent Choultry for the next year and alleged that due to inaction on the part of the fifth respondent Choultry the said payment was not received on or before 11.08.2009, in keeping with the time stipulation in the order in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008. It accordingly filed WPMP No.23172 of 2009 seeking extension of time for making the said payment, from 11.08.2009 to 18.08.2009. This WPMP was ordered by this Court on 28.08.2009. At this stage, the fifth respondent Choultry filed WVMP No.2400 of 2009 to vacate the interim order dated 21.04.2009 whereby the benefit of the order dated 06.08.2008 passed in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008 was extended in favour of the petitioner Sangham beyond 30.04.2009. The matter was listed for hearing upon the two vacate applications filed by the fifth respondent Choultry viz., WVMP Nos.1435 of 2008 and 2400 of 2009. As copious and comprehensive arguments were advanced by the learned counsel covering the whole gamut of the controversy raised in the writ petition, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel. It is the case of the petitioner Sangham that it comprises landless poor farmers and was formed in the year 1977-78. It obtained a lease in respect of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.137.92 cents in Survey Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village belonging to the fifth respondent Choultry at an annual rental of Rs.8,000/-. Initially, the petitioner Sangham is stated to have consisted of 51 members. According to the petitioner Sangham all its members resolved in the general body meeting held on 05.09.1981 to change the name of the Sangham from ‘Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram’ to ‘Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram’. Accordingly, with effect from 05.09.1981 Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, became defunct and in its place Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, came into existence. It is stated that there was however no change in the members of the Sangham. Reference is made to the litigation initiated by the fifth respondent Choultry. ATC No.27 of 1990 was filed by the fifth respondent Choultry before the Special Officer for Tenancy Cases- cum-Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, on 17.08.1990 for eviction. This case was dismissed on 30.11.1999 and aggrieved thereby, the fifth respondent Choultry preferred an appeal in ATA No.176 of 1999 before the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, which was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2005 holding that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 had no application to these leasehold lands in view of the amendment to Section 82 of the Act of 1987. The appellate Court left it open to the aggrieved party to approach the competent authority under the Act of 1987 for redressal. The fifth respondent Choultry was directed not to disturb the possession of the tenants except by due process of law. The fifth respondent Choultry also filed O.S.No.22 of 1996 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for recovery of rents to the tune of Rs.22,956/- for the years 1992-93 to 1994-95. By Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.1999, the trial Court held that Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was the successor of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, and that it was continuing in possession of the leasehold lands. The trial Court further held that in spite of the successor Sangham tendering rent to the Choultry it had refused the same constraining the successor Sangham to deposit the rents in the tenancy Court. Observing that the Choultry was at liberty to withdraw the same, the trial Court dismissed the suit. This Judgment has admittedly attained finality. While things stood thus, the petitioner Sangham addressed representation dated 23.09.2003 to the fourth respondent seeking recognition of its members as landless poor persons, as defined in the first Explanation to Section 82 of the Act of 1987, and the consequential benefits reserved thereunder for such persons. Pertinent to note, the second Explanation to this provision was introduced only in the year 2008. The representation was taken on file by the fourth respondent as M.A.No.389 of 2004 and by order dated 22.01.2005, the petitioner Sangham’s request was rejected on the ground that there was no valid lease in its favour and that it did not fulfill the requirements to be declared as landless poor persons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Sangham filed Appeal No.19 of 2005 before the third respondent which met with failure when it was dismissed under order dated 16.09.2005. These two proceedings are subjected to challenge in this writ petition. The fifth respondent Choultry stated in its counter that the amount fixed as the total rent under order dated 06.08.2008 in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008 worked out to a meager sum of Rs.3,774/- per acre and alleged that if these lands were put to public auction they would easily fetch Rs.8,000/- per acre. The Choultry contended that the petitioner Sangham was continuing in occupation of its lands without any approved lease and accordingly sought vacation of the order dated 21.04.2009 passed in WPMP No.10667 of 2009 in W.P.No.488 of 2006. In its earlier counter filed in this writ petition, the fifth respondent Choultry stated that the subject lands were leased out to one M.Sreeramulu for a period of six years from 1973-74 to 1978-79. Upon surrender of the lands by the said lessee, who had been cultivating it through third parties, viz., one P.Appa Rao and 50 others, the fifth respondent Choultry stated that the lease was granted in favour of these actual cultivators who formed into an association, by name Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram. It is stated that the Secretary of this association submitted a representation in this regard and upon the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, confirming that the members of the association were the actual cultivators, the Choultry granted a lease in their favour subject to the condition that they pay the arrears of rentals of M.Sreeramulu. It was in these circumstances that a lease was granted for a period of six years from 1979-80 to 1984-85 in favour of the Sangham on payment of an annual maktha of Rs.8,000/-. According to the fifth respondent Choultry, owing to disputes amongst the members of the Sangham, Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham was formed and no lease was granted by it to this new Sangham. Alleging that Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, its lessee, had sub-leased the lands to Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, the fifth respondent Choultry filed ATC No.27 of 1990 before the District Munsif, Peddapuram, for its eviction and after dismissal thereof, Appeal No.176 of 1999 before the District Court, East Godavari. The fifth respondent Choultry denied that the petitioner could claim the status of ‘landless poor person’ as defined in the first Explanation to Section 82 of the Act of 1987 and supported the orders passed by the fourth respondent and the third respondent holding to that effect. In its reply, the petitioner Sangham stated that it was continuing in possession of the subject lands pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and that its members had invested substantial sums to raise crops of tapioca, cotton and cereals. It denied the contention of the fifth respondent Choultry that the lands would fetch more income than that fixed by this Court and opposed the vacation of the interim order granted on 21.04.2009 by this Court. In a separate reply to the earlier counter of the fifth respondent Choultry, the petitioner Sangham stated that it had been registered as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1860’) with Registration No.631 of 1981 dated 30.11.1981. It placed reliance on the certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapuram, in Rc.No.3994/2003 dated 21.09.2003 stating that it’s members had no other land in Peddapuram, and in Rc.No.3778/2003 dated 07.09.2003 certifying that the landholding of each member of the petitioner Sangham qualified him/her as a small farmer/landless poor person. It relied upon the finding of the Tenancy Court in ATC No.27 of 1990 rejecting the stand of the fifth respondent Choultry that there was a sub-lease between Sannakaru Rythu Sangham and Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham and the categorical finding that they were one and the same. Reference is also made to the Judgment of the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.22 of 1996 in this regard. It denied the claim of the fifth respondent Choultry that its members did not fulfill the requirements to qualify as landless poor persons and contested the approach of the authorities in treating the petitioner Sangham as a single unit instead of looking to its constituents, the members thereof. The fifth respondent Choultry, a charitable institution in terms of the Act of 1987, owned an extent of Ac.137.92 cents in Survey Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village. It is an admitted fact that after the surrender of the lease of these lands by the erstwhile lessee, Sreeramulu, the lands were given on lease to the persons who had actually cultivated them under Sreeramulu. These 51 persons formed into an association called Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, and the lease was granted to it on payment of an annual maktha of Rs.8,000/-. This lease was for a period of six years from 1979-80 to 1984-85. The proceedings dated 24.05.1979 issued by the office of the Commissioner, Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, demonstrate that the said lease through private negotiations was accepted by the authorities. In effect, the lease in favour of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was a valid one, having been executed in accordance with due procedure. It is an admitted fact that an extent of Ac.31.42 cents situated in Survey No.171 of the village out of the total extent of Ac.137.92 cents belonging to the fifth respondent Choultry was acquired by the State for providing house sites to weaker sections. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Sangham, stated on instructions that his client was restricting its claim in the present writ petition to the balance extent of land after excluding this acquired land. In that view of the matter, no orders are required in WPMP No.21801 of 2008 filed by the officers of the State seeking to come on record in this writ petition to protect the State’s interests. The validity of the transition whereby Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, became Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, need not be gone into by this Court in the present writ petition as the findings of the competent Civil Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, in the Judgment dated 30.11.1999 in O.S.No.22 of 1996 are binding on the fifth respondent Choultry in so far as this aspect is concerned. Admittedly, this Judgment attained finality and the fifth respondent Choultry, being a party thereto, cannot be permitted to re-open issues that stood settled thereunder. The specific finding of the Civil Court that Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham was the successor of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham and that only the names had changed but the identity remained the same, would therefore bind the fifth respondent Choultry. The contention of the fifth respondent Choultry that no lease was executed thereafter in favour of the petitioner Sangham and it could not therefore maintain an application for its members to be recognized as landless poor cultivating tenants under Section 82 of the Act of 1987 cannot be accepted. Though the agricultural lease granted in favour of the Sangham was initially for a period of six years upto 1984-85, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 it had to be construed to be a lease in perpetuity. It was only under Section 82 of the Act of 1987 that these leases stood cancelled by operation of law. A learned Judge of this Court in PAVULURI RAMAIAH V/s. STATE OF A.P.[1] held Section 82 of the Act of 1987 to be unconstitutional. The same was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in SAMADHI NARAYANA V/s. STATE OF A.P.[2]. On 29.08.2001, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V/s. NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI[3] and held Section 82 of the Act of 1987 to be lawful and valid. Thereafter, by Amendment Act No.27 of 2002, clause (5) was inserted in Section 82 whereby the Tenancy Acts were made retrospectively inapplicable to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment as defined in the Act. During the pendency of the aforestated litigation revolving around the validity of the provision, the fifth respondent Choultry, in recognition of the fact that the lease executed in favour of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, continued even after the expiry of the six year period ending with the year 1984-85, filed ATC No.27 of 1990 before the Special Officer for Tenancy Cases-cum-Principal District Munsif, Peddapuram, seeking eviction on the ground that the lessee Sangham had sub-leased the lands in favour of Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram. Significantly, the Choultry did not plead that the lease had expired and seek eviction on that ground. The Tribunal on facts held that no sub-lease was proved and that the evidence on record revealed that the members of both the associations were one and the same and as Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, had become defunct, Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, had been registered as the new entity. Aggrieved by these findings, the fifth respondent Choultry filed an appeal in ATA No.176 of 1999 which came to be decided by the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, after the decision of the Supreme Court in NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI3. The appellate authority therefore held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 had no application to the subject lease and accordingly dismissed the appeal leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The fifth respondent Choultry had also instituted a suit in O.S.No.22 of 1996 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for recovery of rents from Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, for the years 1992-93 to 1994-95. Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was impleaded separately as the second defendant in the suit. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, found on facts that though the name had changed, the members of both the Sanghams were the same; that Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was the successor of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram; and that it continued in possession of the leasehold lands in that status. As the successor Sangham had deposited the rents due before the Tenancy Court, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, opined that there was no default in the payment of rents and accordingly dismissed the suit. This Judgment attained finality and the issues decided therein would be binding on the parties thereto and cannot be re-opened at this stage, being barred by the principles of res judicata. (RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE V/s. VITHU HIRA MAHAR[4] and MOHANLAL GOENKA V/s. BENOY KISHNA MUKHERJEE[5]). Thus, the petitioner Sangham, being the successor of the earlier Sangham, continued as the lawful lessee of the fifth respondent Choultry till Section 82 of the Act of 1987 came into force. DEGA BABI REDDY v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[6], relied upon by Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel, is therefore distinguishable on facts as this Court found that the petitioners therein, who claimed the benefit of Section 82 of the Act of 1987, were in unauthorized occupation of the endowment lands without a lease deed executed in their favour by or on behalf of the endowment in accordance with the due process of law, substantive and procedural. Such unauthorized occupation therefore did not alleviate them to the status of cultivating tenants under the said provision. Similar is the situation in AVUTHU SIVA PRASAD REDDY v. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GUNTUR[7], wherein a learned Division Bench of this Court found that the person claiming the benefit of Section 82 of the Act of 1987 did not appear to be a lawful tenant recognizable in law as such. After the Judgment of the Supreme Court in NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI3, and the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 in G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments.I) Department, dated 11.03.2003, the petitioner Sangham submitted an application to the fourth respondent seeking recognition of its members as landless poor cultivating tenants in terms of the first Explanation to Section 82 as amended by Act 27 of 2002. This application stood rejected by the fourth respondent and was confirmed thereafter by the third respondent in appeal. Section 82 of the Act of 1987 as it presently stands reads as under: 82. Lease of Agricultural Lands:–– (1) Any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stands cancelled. (2) In respect of leases of agricultural lands (other than those lands situated in municipalities and municipal corporations) held by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person shall have the right to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five per centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal instalments in the manner prescribed. Such sale may be effected otherwise than by order-cum-public auction: Provided that if such small and marginal farmers who are not able to purchase the land will continue as tenants provided if they agree to pay at least two third of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount. Explanation:–– For the purpose of this sub-section ‘landless poor person’ means a person whose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed 1.01,1715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.02,3430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other than from such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential property exceeding 200 square yards in urban area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property. Explanation-II:–– For the purpose of this sub-section, small and marginal farmers means a person who being a lessee is holding lands in excess of acres 0.25 cents of wet land or acres 0.50 cents of dry land and over and above the ceiling limits of acres 2.50 wet or acres 5.00 dry land respectively they may be allowed to continue in lease subject to payment of 2/3rd of prevailing market rent and excess land held if any more than the above limits shall be put in public auction. (3) The authority to sanction the lease or licence in respect of any property or any or interest thereon belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment, the manner in which and the period for which such lease or licence shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Every lease or licence of any immovable property, other than the agricultural land belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment subsisting on the date of the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force subject to the rules as may be prescribed under sub-section (3). (5) The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 shall not apply to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or