IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12600 of 2005 Between: Chandramouli Veerabhadra Sarma S/o.Venkatasatyanarayana East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, E.G.District. 2 Sri Ramalingeswara Swamivari Devasthanam rep. by its Person-in- Management, Lingamparthi, Ramavaram Village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. E.V.V.S.RAVI KUMAR FOR MR.V.L.N.G.K.MURTHY Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed to set aside auction held on 27.05.2005 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.32 cents in Survey No.423 of Katravulapalli Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District without considering the petitioner’s representation to declare him as a landless poor person. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the above-mentioned land, which admittedly belongs to respondent No.2, and a statutory tenant. He claims that he applied to the Commissioner of Endowments to sell the property to him under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). His grievance is that even without considering the said request, the leasehold rights of the land were auctioned on 27.05.2005. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Manager of respondent No.2 temple, the claim of the petitioner that he made an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for declaring him as a small farmer is denied. It is averred that the petitioner, who is cultivating an extent of Acs.2.32 cents of wet land belonging to respondent No.2, also owns an extent of Acs.2.00 of wet land and hence, he is not a small farmer. Though in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, he asserted that he made an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry to declare him as a small farmer, the petitioner has not filed a copy of any such application in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to application, dated 15.06.2003 to show that such an application has been made. A perusal of the said document shows that the same was addressed to the Commissioner of Endowments with copies marked to the subordinate officers including the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry. Under Section 82(2) of the Act, lessees of agricultural lands for not less than six years continuously, who are landless poor persons, shall have the right to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five percent 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 and such sale may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public auction. Under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules’), the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction is vested with the power to decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person as defined under Section 82 of the Act after giving him a reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the Executive Authority of the concerned institution or Endowment. Therefore, it is the Assistant Commissioner, Rajahmundry, who is competent to decide the claim of the petitioner and admittedly, the petitioner has not filed a substantive application to him except claiming that a copy of the representation made to the Commissioner of Endowments was marked to him. Since the lease of the property was already stayed by this Court and in view of expiry of nearly three years there from, the lease transaction has become abortive. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach respondent No.1 with an application under Rule 3 of the Rules. If such an application is filed within four (4) weeks from today, respondent No.1 shall decide the same after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. Till respondent No.1 decides the issue, the property in question shall not be either sold or leasehold rights therein auctioned to third parties. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP.No.2984 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th JULY, 2008. kvni