THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 1163 of 2008 ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice C V Nagarjuna Reddy) At the interlocutory stage, this writ appeal has been taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of learned counsel for all the parties. This writ appeal is filed against order dated 5-9-2008 whereby learned single Judge disposed of W.P. No. 19279 of 2008 by upholding auction notice dated 22-8-2008 and giving liberty to the petitioners to participate in the auction. Learned single Judge further permitted the petitioners to file appeals against purported order passed by respondent No.2. The appellants were the cultivating tenants of the lands belonging to respondent No.1 institution. On the ground that existing leases stood terminated under the provisions of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) leasehold rights of the properties were sought to be put to auction. The appellants filed W.P. 14108 of 2004 questioning the proposed auction. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Respondent No.2 passed order dated 6.7.2005 holding that the appellants are not landless poor persons being entitled to the benefit conferred by Section 82 (2) of the Act. The appellants thereupon filed W.P. 14982 of 2005 questioning the said order. The said writ petition was allowed on 4-12-2007 by quashing order dated 6.7.2005 directing respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order after making a thorough enquiry into the claims of the appellants. Thereafter the appellants filed their objections on 13-3-2008. When an auction notification was issued on 22-8-2008 the appellants filed W.P. 19279 of 2008 questioning the same. While it was the case of the appellants that no order was passed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in W.P. No. 14982 of 2005, the respondents have taken the stand that in June 2008 itself respondent No.2 passed an order holding that the appellants are not landless poor persons. In the light of the said stand taken by the respondents, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by giving the following directions : “For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that- (a) the impugned notice, dated 22.08.2008 is upheld and it shall be open to the 1st respondent to proceed with the auction and the period of lease shall be mentioned as three years; (b) it shall be open to the petitioners to participate in the auction. In case, they emerge as the highest bidders, the 1st respondent shall grant them fresh lease on fresh terms, for a period of three years, subject to approval by the competent authority, which, in turn, shall be without prejudice to their right to claim the status of landless poor before the 3rd respondent; (c) in case, the petitioners do not emerge as highest bidders, it shall be open to them to offer the highest bid, either for three years or one year, and continue as lessees, by paying the corresponding amount. If they do not offer to pay the highest bid, even for one year, it shall be open to the 1st respondent to get the crop harvested, realize the rent, deduct the expenditure, and refund the balance, if any, to the petitioners. (d) The 1st respondent shall put the amount, that is fetched in the lease, year after year, in a fixed deposit and utilize the interest, which accrues thereon, to be drawn, once in three months. The principal amount shall be utilized only for permanent works, with the approval of the Trust Board and authorities under the Act. (e) In case, the petitioners present appeals against the order of the 2nd respondent, within three (3) weeks from today, before the 3rd respondent, they shall be entertained, without raising any objection as to the limitation; and the adjudication shall be confined to the claim of the petitioners as landless poor. “ Questioning this order, the writ petitioners filed the present writ appeal. We have heard Sri M Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri C Satish Kumar, Standing counsel for Endowments(R-1) and Sri A. Abhishek Reddy for impleaded respondents in this writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this Court gave a specific direction to respondent No.2 in W.P. No. 14982 of 2005 to conduct a thorough enquiry and pass appropriate order on the status of the appellants and no such order has been either passed or communicated to the appellants. He, therefore, submitted that notification impugned in the writ petition, through which the properties were sought to be auctioned, itself was illegal. He further submitted that the purported order said to have been passed by respondent No.2 is only a communication sent to the Commissioner, Endowments department and he invited the court’s attention to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, wherein, he admitted that the same was an internal report and that there was no need for him to send a copy to the appellants. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments submitted that though the order passed by respondent No.2 was not in the form of an order in its letter, but in spirit, it is an order. He, therefore, submitted that the learned single Judge has not committed any error in permitting appellants to avail the remedy of appeal against such an order and giving directions to meet the exigencies of situation pending adjudication of the appellants’ claims in the appeal. Sri Abishek Reddy, learned counsel for the implead respondents submitted that their clients have participated in the auction held on 8-9-2008 and have offered the highest bid of Rs, 6,40,000/- and possession was delivered as evident from Pahanis. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. In W.P. No. 14982 of 2005, this court gave the following directions: “Hence, viewed from any angle, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order in these Writ Petitions had not been made in accordance with Law and the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to give opportunity to the writ petitioners by furnishing the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and also the other relevant material and further inviting the objections in this regard and make a thorough enquiry taking into consideration the prior order made by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments and also the relevant provisions of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Rules as well specified above and decide the matter afresh in accordance with Law. Till an appropriate decision is taken by the competent authority, status quo as on today to be maintained.” A perusal of the purported order passed by respondent No.2 shows that this was addressed to the Commissioner, Endowments Department of Aandhra Pradesh. Though the contents of the said document show that respondent No.2 has made enquiries and arrived at his own conclusions about the status of the appellants, in our opinion, this document cannot, by any stand, and be termed as an order in legal parlance. Under Rule 3 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lands of Agricultural lands Rules 2003, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to enquire into and decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person as defined in explanation to Section 82 (2) of the Act. The word ‘decide’ used in Rule 3 indicates that the Assistant Commissioner is authorized to function as an adjudicatory body and thereby discharges the ‘quasi judicial’ function. Therefore, he is expected to pass an order, which is conformed to law. As already pointed out, the document, which is termed as an order, is a communication sent to the Commissioner containing opinion of respondent No.2. Further, it is noticed from the said document that not even a copy was marked to the appellants. Indeed, respondent No.2 himself in his counter affidavit at page 8 termed the said document as a report between the Subordinate Officer and Higher Officers. On the face of this unequivocal stand by respondent No.2, it cannot be said that he complied with the order of this Court by passing an order in order to adjudicate the claims made by the appellants regarding their status as landless poor persons. Until such time as respondent No.2 passed an order determining their claims, there is no justification for auctioning the leasehold rights of the lands. In this view of the matter, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge, upholding the auction notification. For the above-mentioned reasons the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to rehear the case afresh after giving opportunity to the appellants and pass a fresh order on the status of the appellants in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in all respects. Further, it is required to be observed that the impleaded respondents are at liberty to work out their remedies with regard to the payments already made in pursuance of the auction notification. With the above observations, this writ appeal is allowed. No costs. --------------------------- T MEENA KUMARI J ---------------------------------- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY J Kvrk/17.02.2009 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 1163 of 2008 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri. Justice C V Nagarjuna Reddy) 17th February 2009