THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15465 of 2008 Date : 22-9-2009 Between: Smt.Gurrala Kotamma .. Petitioner And The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II, Tirupati, Chittoor District And others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15465 of 2008 ORDER: 1. Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent. 2. The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to call for records relating to the order dt.6-2-2008 passed in Appeal No.17/2006 (old Appeal No.820/2006) on the file of 1st respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Act 30 of 1987 as well as Act 33 of 2007 and consequently set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.B4/4994/2003-5 dated 3-8-2006 and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. Smt.Kavitha had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition to be allowed. While further elaborating her submissions, the Counsel pointed out the husband of the petitioner and had been cultivating these lands since 1972 and after his death the petitioner had been cultivating the same. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the nature of the land. The learned Counsel further pointed out that at any rate no speaking order had been made by the 1st respondent. 4. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that as per the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1987) the original tenant who was inducted into temple lands prior to six years on the date of commencement of Act 30/1987 is entitled for the right of declaration as small farmer and after his demise his legal heirs cannot be treated as small farmers and hence the contention of the petitioner is not correct. The learned Assistant Government pleader would further maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded both by the Primary Authority and also the Appellate Authority, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent would maintain that the ingredients to be satisfied had not been satisfied. There is no lessor and lessee relationship and there is no approved lease and no acceptable evidence had been produced in this regard either before the Primary Authority or Appellate Authority. Hence the order to be confirmed. 6. The order impugned in this Writ Petition reads as hereunder:- “This appeal has been preferred challenging the order of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole issued in Rc.No.B4/4990/03-5, dt.3-8-2006 rejecting the claim of the appellant as land less poor tenant of land measuring Ac.2.00 Wet belonging to Sri Veereswara Swamy Temple, Santhamaguluru (v), Prakasam Dist. The only point for consideration is whether there is valid lease approved by the competent authority and whether there was continuous lease for 6 years prior to the enactment of Act 30/87. The material evidence placed before me shows that the applicant has participated in the public auction held in 17-10- 1986 and became highest bidder. As such he was not the lessee continuously for a period of 6 years prior to the Act 30/87. I therefore hold that the appellant is not eligible for declaration as Land Less poor tenant u/s 82 of the Act 30/87. In the result the appeal is dismissed”. 7. Several averments had been made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition at paras 3, 4 and 5 and certain Grounds also had been specified. 8. In the light of several averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also taking into consideration the nature of the order made and further on perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the 1st respondent who is expected to make a speaking order had not applied his mind to all the facts and circumstances and in fact made a cryptic order. Even otherwise it is brought to the notice of this Court that the additional material available unfortunately could not be placed either before the Primary Authority or the Appellate Authority. Be that as it may, in the light of the nature of the order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to place the additional material, if any available with the petitioner and decide the matter afresh after considering all the grounds of appeal in proper perspective in accordance with Law and also in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30/1987 and the Rules made thereunder. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Inasmuch as this is an old matter, let the 1st respondent give top priority for early disposal of the matter. __________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date : -9-2009 AM