IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH 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 : 1374 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/09/2008 in WP NO : 16917 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Bandela Sreeramulu S/o. Late Kamayya R/o. Ryali, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner Endowment Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Sri. Uma Kamandaleswara Swamy Temple, rep. by its Manager, Rayali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.M.M.CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH 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 : 1375 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/09/2008 in WP NO : 16890 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Bandela Satyanarayana S/o.Late Satyam R/o. Ryali, Atreyapuram Mandal East Godavari District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department,Kakinada, East Godavari District 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 3 Sri Uma Kamandaleswara Swamy Temple, rep.by its Manager, Rayali village, Atreyapuram Mandal E.G.District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.M.M.CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: 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 APPEALS NO :1374 & 1375_of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) These writ appeals are filed against common order dated 18.9.2008 in W.Ps.No:16917 & 16890 of 2008 respectively whereby the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petitions filed by the appellants. Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one and the same and both the appeals arise out of a common order, these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants herein filed the above writ petitions challenging the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 23.6.2007 in M.A Nos.1284 and 1283 of 2007, as confirmed by the 1st respondent by orders dated 25.3.2008 & 9.4.2008 in Appeal Nos.258 and 261 of 2007 respectively, on the ground that they were granted leases over various extents of land in Ryali Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, owned by Sri Umakamandaleswara Swamy Temple and they made an endeavour to get themselves declared as landless poor in terms of Section 82 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’). But, their steps failed and the temple is said to have resumed the possession of the land and issued notices dated 27.7.2008 proposing to conduct auction for grant of leasehold rights, on 6.8.2008. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petitions upholding the action of the respondents in resuming possession of the land as well as conducting the auction for grant of leasehold rights, but directing that the petitioners shall be entitled to harvest the crop, if any, existing over the land, within one week under the supervision of the Manager of the Temple and they shall also be entitled to remove the implements or machinery, if any installed, by them with due intimation and under proper receipt from the Manager. Having aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners filed the above appeals. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners that the fathers of the appellants were the tenants of the lands belonging to the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam and after their demise, the appellants continued to be the cultivating tenants and hence, they are entitled for continuation of lease of the lands. Therefore, the order under appeals, is not justified and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam contended across the bar that the auction had already been conducted and the bidders were put in possession of the lands in question. The main ground that was urged by the appellants is that they are lessees in respect of the land of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam and therefore, they are entitled to the benefits that are conferred under the provisions of Section 82 (2) of the Act. As can be seen from the material on record and the proceedings dated 23.6.2007, it is apparent that the existence of the lease between the appellants and the temple authorities, came to an end after demise of their fathers and in the absence of the material on record to the effect that lease is granted in favour of the appellants subsequently, it cannot be said that they are the valid lessees. As already stated, the entire claim of the appellants is based on the provisions of section 82 (2) of the Act. At this stage, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 82(2) of the Act, which lays down that a landless poor person, who was a lessee of agricultural lands 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. It is to be noted that the intention of the legislature with regard to the above provisions, is only with a view to lend its little finger to the poor people, who are in possession of the lands belonging to the religious charitable institutions enabling them to purchase the land subject to satisfying the conditions contained in Section 82(2) read with Explanation of the Act. But, that does not mean that every alleged cultivating tenant can claim the benefit as a matter of right under the above provisions without complying with the stipulated conditions mentioned thereunder. In this regard, it has to be noted that the exercise done by the appellants before the authorities concerned both the original and the appellate authorities seeking to declare them as landless poor, has become futile on the concurrent finding that they are not the rightful lessees. In the absence of any such material available on record to the effect that the appellants are the valid lessees, the benefits that are conferred under the provisions of 82 (2) of the Act, cannot be extended in a case of this nature. In this view of the matter coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of the appellants as sought for in the writ petitions, is without any basis and thereby, the order impugned, needs no interference by this Court. As such, both the appeals are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed confirming the order of the learned single Judge. No costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Dated: 17/02/2009 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NOs :1374 & 1375 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) 17.02.2009