IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24055 of 2005 Between: K. Muni Krishna Reddy … Petitioner AND Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Kurnool & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Govind Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri V. Venugopal Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24055 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.1.47 cents in Sy.No.230 of Tirupati Village, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to dispossess him from the said land. Heard Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.Venugopal Rao for respondent No.3. The property in dispute admittedly belongs to respondent No.3 and the petitioner claims that the same was leased out by respondent No.3 to his father and that since then his father paid Maktha to respondent No.3 regularly up to 1969. He further averred that the lease in his favour was renewed from 2001 to 2003 by respondent No.3 on 22.09.2000, after approval from respondent No.1 and that even after the expiry of the said lease period, he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner further pleaded that he is a landless poor person and he made an application to respondent No.1 on 13.03.1991 itself under Section 82 (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) expressing his willingness to purchase the said land. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his application is pending, proceedings under Section 83 of the Act were initiated for his eviction. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Administrative Officer of respondent No.3, the claim of the petitioner that his father was a lessee was denied. He, however, admitted that the lease in favour of the petitioner was approved by respondent No.1 on 07.09.2000 and pleaded that the said lease period expired on 31.12.2003 and that the said lease was a conditional one to the effect that the petitioner shall handover possession by 31.12.2003, but the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition resulting in institution of proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, which was taken on file by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool as O.A.No.5 of 2005 and that the same is pending. Under Section 82 (1) of the Act, all leases 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. Under Section 82 (2) of the Act, in respect of leases of agricultural lands held by landless poor persons for not less than six years continuously, such 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. Under Rule 3 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules’), the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction is the competent authority to declare whether a person is landless poor person or not. The petitioner has not pleaded that he applied to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to declare him as landless poor person. Though he claimed that he approached the concerned authority by exercising the option under Section 82 (2) as far back as the year 1991, in my considered view, unless the petitioner seeks declaration that he is a landless poor person and succeeds in getting so declared, he cannot exercise an option under Section 82 (2) of the Act. At the hearing, Sri V. Venugopal Rao brought to my notice the amendment made to Section 82 (2) of the Act by Act 33 of 2007 with effect from 03.01.2008 by which agricultural land situated in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations are excluded from its purview and submitted that in view of the said amendment and the fact that the land is situated in Tirupati, which is a Municipal Corporation, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the benefit of Section 82 (2) of the Act. In the absence of specific pleading in this regard raised by the respondents, I am not inclined to go into this issue. It is for the Assistant Commissioner concerned to pass appropriate order on the application to be made by the petitioner to declare him as a landless poor person. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an application under Rule 3 of the Rules before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor, within a period of four weeks from today. On such application being made, the Assistant Commissioner shall decide the same with reference to Section 82 (2) of the Act including the recent amendment as noted supra, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Till the disposal of the said application, status quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to the possession of the land in question. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.30916 of 2005 and 18962 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.07.2008 ES