IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1723 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/10/2008 in WP NO : 9827 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Tadikonda Koteswara Rao s/o Venkateswarlu r/o Chavali, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur district. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department Multi Zone-Ii, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Executive Officer of Sri Valeswara Swamy Temple, Chavali, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G.DHARMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1723 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 30.10.2008 in W.P.No. 9827 OF 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the orders passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The appellant had been the cultivating tenant of the land belonging to Sri Valeswara Swamy Temple, Chavali, vemuru Mandal, Guntur District- respondent No.3 under a lease deed. The proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated prior to the commencement of the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’). The appellant filed W.P.No.8907 of 2003 questioning the eviction notices issued by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Act. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22.6.2004 permitting the appellant to make an application before respondent No.2 for declaration of his right under Section 82 (2) of the Act and respondent No.3 was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the appellant approached respondent No.3 to declare him as a landless poor person. By order dated 23.3.2005, respondent No.3 held that as the appellant had been in possession of an extent of Ac.5.40 cents of wet land as cultivating tenant, he is not entitled to be declared as a landless poor person under the provisions of section 82(2) of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before respondent No.1 and the same was dismissed on 24.11.2007. Questioning these two orders, the appellant filed W.P.No.9827 of 2008. The learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings of both the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel, dismissed the writ petition, which is assailed in this writ appeal. Sri G.Dharma Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge has committed an error in not considering the offer made by the appellant to surrender the extent in excess of Ac.2.50 cents of land in order to claim benefit of landless poor person. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, representing respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 respectively, submitted that as the appellant was admittedly in possession of land in excess of 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land as a cultivating tenant, he is not eligible to be declared as a landless poor person. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Under Section 82(1) of the Act, 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 the Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stand cancelled. Under Section 82(2), a landless poor person, who was a lessee of agricultural lands for not less than six years continuously, shall have the right to purchase lands for a consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase. The explanation which is the bone of contention in this case reads as under: “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 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.023430 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 two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property.” In our considered view, the legislature in order to avoid hardship to the landless poor persons, who are in possession of the lands belonging to the religious charitable institutions provided for an option to them to purchase the land subject to their satisfying the conditions contained in Section 82(2) read with the Explanation. On a proper analysis of the explanation, we are of the view that if a person owns a land or cultivates the same as a tenant within the extent of Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land and whose annual income does not exceed twelve thousand per annum, he is entitled to avail the benefit under Section 82(2) of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant had been the cultivating tenant of the extent of Ac.5.40 cents of wet land. Therefore, ex facie, he is not eligible to be considered as a landless poor person under Section 82(2) of the Act. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant raised the contention that the appellant’s income was only Rs.11,000/-, the said contention has no merit because such a plea would be relevant only in case where he was found in possession of land of extent which is less than Ac.2.50 cents of wet or Ac.5.00 of dry. When once it is found that he was a lessee of more than the above mentioned extent, the quantum of his income has no relevance. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the orders passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has retained Ac.2.50 cents of land and surrendered the balance land and that there are standing crops. He requested that the appellant may be permitted to harvest the same. Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the appellant has not paid lease amount in respect of the crop raised in the month of August, 2008. The learned Counsel for the appellant disputed this contention. Having regard to the facts of the case, while dismissing the appeal, we permit the appellant to harvest the standing crop over Ac.2.50 cents of the land subject to his clearing off the proportionate rentals for the said extent at the rate agreed under the lease agreement, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 is entitled to take possession of the said land of Ac.2.50 cents in occupation of appellant as soon as the standing crop, if any, is harvested by the appellant. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Dated: 9th February, 2009 Note: Issue CC in one week (BO)/Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1723 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) 09.2.2009