HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.18118 of 2007 Date: December 1, 2011 Between: R. Sesharao, S/o. late Musalayya … Petitioner And The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone Endowments Dept., Kakinada and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.1.29 cents covered by Sy.Nos.36/1 and 132/1 of Theeparru village, Peravalli Mandal, East Godavari District and to set aside the order dated 30.03.2007 passed in appeal No.175 of 2006 by the 1st respondent, Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone, Endowments Department, Kakinada. The land in question belongs to 3rd respondent- Choultry, an institution governed by the provisions under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the case of the petitioner that his father was the tenant of the said land from last several years and after his death, he came into possession of the same. It is stated that he is cultivating the said land by paying Maktha of Rs.8,000/- p.a. to the 3rd respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he is a tenant in view of the orders of the Tenancy Tribunal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and though he is a landless poor person entitle to the benefit under Section 82(2) of the Act, respondents are taking steps to dispossess him from the land in question. It is stated that he has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Eluru to declare him as landless poor person, but the same is erroneously rejected by order dated 08.11.2006; as against the same, though he has preferred an appeal under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Section 82 of the Act before the 1st respondent, the appeal is rejected without valid reasons. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a tenant, whose tenancy is protected in view of the orders passed in A.T.C.No.14 of 2002, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. It is stated that, in any event, as he is paying Maktha and is a landless poor person in view of the certification made by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the effect that he is not having any other land, he is entitle to the benefit under Section 82(2) of the Act. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the land in question belongs to the 3rd respondent-Choultry, an institution governed by the provisions under the Act. There is amendment to Section 82 of the Act, which was effected by virtue of Act 33 of 2007. As per 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 in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stands cancelled. agricultural leases notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force, held by the Tahsildar is not a landless poor person stands cancelled. As per Section 82(2) of the Act, in respect of the lease of agricultural lands held by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person shall have the right to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five per centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase. Further, under Section 82(5) of the Act, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 shall not apply to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institutions or endowments. While it is true that the petitioner was declared as tenant in A.T.C.No.14 of 2002, but, in view of the provision under Section 82 (5) of the Act, the provisions of Act XVIII of 1956 and Act XXI of 1950 itself are dis- applied to lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institutions or endowments. Merely based on the adjudication in the A.T.C., referred above, the petitioner cannot claim tenancy. Further, in the order dated 30.03.2007, passed by the 1st respondent, it is categorically held that there is no approved lease in favour of the petitioner and he was also not in possession for a period of six years continuously before coming into force of the Act, as contemplated under Section 82(2) of the Act. It is also clear from the impugned order that the petitioner has used the land in question for non-agricultural purpose without any authority of law and permission from the competent authorities. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order 30.03.2007 passed in appeal No.175 of 2006 by the 1st respondent, Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone, Endowments Department, Kakinada. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) December 1, 2011 MRR