IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8447 of 2009 Between: N. Shashavali S/o. N. Shavali R/o. D.No.2-77, Diguvageri, Mothi Nagar, Kanekal, Kanekal Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. Commissioner and Manager, Sri Vavimatt Samsthanam, Uravakonda, Anantapur District. 3 Kuraba Leelavathi W/o. K. Laleppa R/o. D.No. 2-310, Near Madina Masjid, Diguvagare, Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 Jangam Sulepalli Gangamma W/o. Thippeswarmy, Melyam Village, Kanekal Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in granting lease of agricultural lands situated in Sy.No.1000-A Ac 1-40 cents Sy.No.1000-C Ac 0-17 cents and in Sy.No.325-E Ac 0-20 cents of Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District through proceedings in L. Dis. No. N1/11372/2009 dt.18-3-2009 of the 1st respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent without considering the petitioner's request for grant of lease in terms of sec. 82 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice and in violation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to disposes the petitioner from the agricultural lands situated in Sy.No.1000-A Ac.1-40 cents Sy.No.1000-C Ac 0-17 cents and in Sy.No.325-E Ac.0-20 cents of Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments, and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of respondents 1 and 2 in granting lease of agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.1.77 cents situated in S.Nos.1000-A, 1000-C, and 325-E of Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, in favour of the third respondent, through proceedings in L.Dis.No.N1/11372/2009, dated 18.03.2009, without considering his request for grant of lease in terms of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner is that originally an extent of Ac.1.77 cents of wetland situated Kanekal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District, belonging to Sri Gavimatt Samsthanam of Uravakonda, was given in lease to the husband of the fourth respondent. The petitioner is cultivating the same as sub-tenant for more than 30 years. The husband of the fourth respondent died about 10 years ago, and since then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. In the year 2002 when the fourth respondent made attempts to dispossess the petitioner, he filed W.P.No.1078 of 2002, and the same was dismissed on 19.06.2002 with liberty to approach the civil Court. Then the petitioner filed O.S.No.64 of 2002 against the fourth respondent on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg for permanent injunction and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 1.02.2007. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though there was a decree in his favour, the first respondent erroneously granted lease in favour of the third respondent on 18.03.2009. The petitioner states that as per Section 82 of the Act, if any landless poor person is in occupation of Ac.2.50 cents of wetland for more than six years continuously, he is having right to purchase the same land and in case if he is unable to purchase the said land he shall be allowed to continue as lessee. The petitioner also states that he is cultivating the above said land for more than 30 years, and he is entitled to continue as lessee. In this regard he made so many representations but in vain. Hence the present writ petition. This Court while dealing with the similar matter in Dega Babi Reddy v. Government of A.P.,[1] held as under. The unauthorized occupation of the endowment lands by the petitioners without a lease deed executed in their favour by or on behalf of the Endowment after following the due process of law; substantive and procedural, would not elevate occupation of the petitioners to the status of cultivating tenants as understood by the provisions of the New Act. Cultivating tenant in Section 82 of the New Act must be understood to denote cultivating tenant under a lawful duly executed lease and not one that is the product of ultra vires conduct of the State actors in defiance of the legislative mandate –see in this connection – (Bhudan Singh v. Nabi Bux – (1969) 2 SCC 481 – paras 12 and 13). There is no exclusion in this principle by the mere fact that the petitioners are in such an unauthorized occupation since 1980 or times immemorial. The petitioners do not claim any prescriptive title or ownership to the lands in question. In the circumstances above, as the petitioners are not cultivating tenants within the meaning of the said expression qua Section 82 of the New Act or the Rules, the petitioners cannot be considered to be landless poor persons for the benefits under Section 82 of the Act. In the instant case, the husband of the fourth respondent is the original tenant of the lands belonging to the Samsthanam. The husband of the fourth respondent died about ten years back and the tenancy granted in his favour expired on 21.02.2002. Thereafter, no tenancy was granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Since the tenancy granted in favour of the husband of the fourth respondent expired on 21.02.2002, and the tenancy having not been extended in favour of the fourth respondent, the petitioner, who claims to be the sub-tenant of the husband of the fourth respondent, cannot claim any right as a sub-tenant of the land, more so when the original tenant died and no tenancy was granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Thus, it is clear that the occupation of the petitioner is unauthorized, and he not being the cultivating tenants within the meaning and expression qua Section 82 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, having regard to the above judgment of this Court, no exception can be taken to the action of the first and second respondents in not granting lease rights in favour of the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that she has been cultivating the land for the last so many years as sub-tenant. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 22nd June, 2007 Js. [1] 2006 (6) ALT 173