IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12347 of 2004 Between: 1 Bodapati Buchi Venkata Rao S/o. Pothuraju Kattunga (V) Athreyapuram (M) E.G. Dt. 2 Bodapati Satyanarayana S/o. Pothuraju Kattunga (V) Athreyapuram (M) E.G. Dt. 3 Bodapati Subba Rao S/o. Veeranna Kattunga (V) Athreyapuram (M) E.G. Dt. 4 Bodapati Satyanarayana S/o. Veeranna Kattunga (V) Athreyapuram (M) E.G. Dt. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments (Multi Zone-1), Kakinada. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Rajahmundry E.G.District. 3 Sri Sakhaleswara Swamy Temple Rep. by its person-in-Management Executive Officer kattunga (V) Athreyapuram (M) E.G. District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in M.a.No.91/2003 of the 2nd respondent, dated 7.10.2003 which was confirmed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.58/2003 dt.17.4.2004 as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12347 OF 2004 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3.48 cents of land in R.S.No.202/2 and 194/2 of Kattunga Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. It is not in dispute that the said land belongs to the 3rd respondent temple. However, the petitioners claimed that their grandfather by name Bodapati Subbaiah was granted the lease in respect of the said land in the year 1945 and after his demise they acquired the tenancy rights by succession. It is also pleaded that after the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 were made under G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endo.I), dated 11.03.2003, the petitioners made a petition before the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner of Endowments - seeking a declaration that they are landless poor persons. However, the 2nd respondent by order dated 7.10.2003 dismissed the said application without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, an Appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent – Regional Joint Commissioner - which was dismissed by order dated 17.4.2004. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent on Appeal is arbitrary and illegal. Since the 3rd respondent proposed to conduct public auction for grant of leasehold rights in respect of the land in their occupation, the petitioners also sought for interim stay of dispossession which was granted by this Court on 19.11.2004. However, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent temple, it is stated that the public auction was conducted on 17.7.2004 itself in which one Vadali Visweswara Rao was declared as the highest bidder. It is also stated that the 1st petitioner alone was cultivating the land and he alone made an application before the 2nd respondent seeking to declare him as landless poor person which was rejected after due enquiry. It is contended that the plea in the writ petition that all the four petitioners are jointly cultivating the land measuring Ac.3.48 cents is false and without any basis and the finding recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioners are not landless poor persons is in accordance with law. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly, the land claimed by the petitioners is wet land to an extent of Ac.3.48 cents. Though it is claimed by the petitioners that all of them are cultivating the said land jointly and on partition each petitioner would get less than Ac.2.50 cents and thus they are all landless poor persons, the material on record shows that the 1st petitioner herein alone was continuing in possession of the entire extent of Ac.3.48 cents. It is also relevant to note that the first petitioner herein alone made a representation before the 2nd respondent seeking a declaration that he is a landless poor person. After due enquiry the 2nd respondent found that there was no valid lease in favour of the 1st petitioner herein and at any rate since the extent of land under his cultivation was more than Ac.2.50 cents he was not a landless poor person as defined under the explanation to Section 82 (2) of the Act. As against the said order, all the four petitioners herein preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent claiming that they were jointly cultivating the land. The said claim was not accepted by the 1st respondent and the Appeal was dismissed. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 that the 1st petitioner herein alone was in possession, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since admittedly the land in question is wet land and exceeded Ac.2.50 cents specified in the explanation to Section 82 (2) of the Act, as rightly held by the respondents 1 and 2 the 1st petitioner is not a landless poor person. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.12.2008 gbs