Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nalli Sanyasi Naidu And Anr. vs Maharaja Alka Narayana Society Of Arts ... on 20 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)ALT755, 1997 A I H C 1918, (1997) 1 ANDHLD 727 (1997) 1 ANDH LT 755, (1997) 1 ANDH LT 755
ORDER Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.
1. The petitioners challenge, through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the action of the 1st respondent in auctioning the leasehold rights in the land covered by Survey No. 204 of Boni Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakaparnam District, by public auction.
2. The 1st petitioner and his deceased brother, namely Laxman Rao, the husband of the 2nd petitioner, in the year 1964 had taken on lease agricultural lands admeasuring Ac. 41.50 cts. of Survey No, 204 of Boni Village, District Visakapatnam (in short 'the suit land') (on lease) for Rs. 207.50 from one Sri K. Satyanarayana, for a period of ten years. On 4-3-1974, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the 1st petitioner and his deceased brother, Laxman Rao, to vacate the suit land because it wanted to sei' the leasehold rights in the suit land by public auction. The 1st petitioner and his deceased brother, Laxman Rao, unsuccessfully challenged the notice in Civil Court. The 1st respondent filed a suit O.S. 57/80 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayanagaram for recovery of Rs. 11,880-00 Ps. being mesne profits for the years 1974-75 to 1979-80. The claim in the suit was compromised by the first respondent and the first petitioner and his deceased brother, Laxman Rao, and a compromise decree was passed on 12-11-1982 and by virtue of which the 1st respondent granted lease in favour of the petitioner and his deceased brother Laxman Rao for a period of six years beginning from 1-7-1983 and in pursuance thereof, a registered sale (sic. lease) deed was executed on 20-12-1984 by the first respondent in their favour. The lease money was settled at Rs. 1800/- per annum for the suit land payable in the month of March of every year. They regularly cultivated the land and paid the lease money during the lease period. When they sent the lease money for the year 1989-90 through money order as advance, the 1st respondent refused to accept the same. The 1st respondent served a legal notice to them demanding vacant possession of the suit land on the ground that the lease had expired by efflux of time. They were also informed that the leasehold rights in the suit land would be sold by public auction wherein they may also participate. They sent a demand draft for Rs. 1800.00Ps. on 20-6-1989 being the lease money, but it was not accepted and by beat of drums, the date of auction was proclaimed as 3-6-1989. The petitioners claim that their rights are protected under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by the amending Act of 1974 and, therefore, the lease that had been granted to them shall be deemed to be in perpetuity, renewable in every six years. Therefore, the provisions of Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'Endowments Act') shall not be made applicable and, therefore, the 1st respondent cannot sell the leasehold rights in the lands in question by public auction.
3. The 1st respondent through its counter, while admitting that lease for a period of six years beginning from 1-7-1983 for the suit land had been granted in favour of the petitioners through registered sale (sic lease) deed dated 20-12-1984, denied the right of the petitioners to continue in possession of the suit lands on the ground that after the expiry of the period of lease, the first respondent was entitled to lease the suit land by public auction and, therefore, auction was held on 30-6-1989 in which one Mr. N.S.N. Raju was declared the highest bidder. They pleaded that the petitioners are encroachers within the meaning of Section 83 of the Endowments Act and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to remain in possession of the suit land.
4. The second and the third respondents did not file their counters.
5. Relying on the case of S. Narayana v. State of A.P, 1990 (1) ALT 237 (D.B.) it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that unless the operation of the Andhra Tenancy Act of 1956 is excluded (and) the lease granted to them for a period of six years is renewable every six years subject to the same terms and conditions and, therefore, they cannot be treated as trespassers or encroachers and no proceedings can be initiated against them Under Section 83 of the Endowments Act and, therefore, the first respondent is not entitled to sell the leasehold rights in the suit land by public auction or otherwise, until and unless the petitioners are evicted Under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956.
6. On the other hand, relying on the case of Rachnri Venkataramana v. Dy. Commissioner, Endowments Dept., 1989 (2) ALT 98 = 1989 (1) APLJ 577, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that with the expiry of the period of lease, the petitioners have become encroachers and the first respondent is entitled to sell the leasehold rights in the suit land by public auction. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that in the case of S. Namyana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1 supra), the provisions of Section 82 of the Endowments Act had been declared ultra vires the Constitution, but the right to auction the leasehold rights after the expiry of the earlier lease has not been declared void Under Section 75 and, therefore, the first respondent is entitled not only to eject the petitioners from the suit lands, but is also entitled to sell the leasehold rights by public auction.
7. In the case of Rachuri Venkataramana, 1989 (2) ALT 98 = 1989 (1) APLJ 577, it is held by a learned single Judge of this Court that, Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Endowments Act, 1966 which is in pari materia with Section 83 of Endowments Act of 87 clearly mentions that on the expiry of lease, if a person remains in possession of the suit land, he shall be deemed to be encroacher and to this extent the general right under the Transfer of Property Act viz. treating the person on the expiry of lease to be a tenant holding - over has been excluded by the legislative enactment and the rights of the parties are to be governed by Section 75(1) Explanation (2) of the said Act. In this case, the question as to whether the lessee after the expiry of the period of lease is entitled for renewal of the lease for another period of six years as a matter of right by virtue of Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1956 did not fall for consideration and, therefore, he cannot be treated as an encroacher within the meaning of Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 as also whether the provisions of Section 75(1) of the said Act overrides the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1956 or not?
8. In the case of Rimmalapudi Ramachandra Rao Chowdary v. Sri Venugopalaswamy Vari Temple and 4 Ors., W.P. No. 15925/88, dt.24-9-1996 (D.B.) the petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant of the 1st respondent-temple in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.97 cts. and claimed that after the expiry of the lease period, the lease became a lease in perpetuity by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act of 1956 as amended by Act 39 of 1974 and, therefore, his rights were protected and the respondents were not entitled to treat him as an encroacher after the expiry of the period of lease and to cancel the lease.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rimmalapudu (3 supra), relying on the case of S. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1 supra) held that a cultivating tenant of agricultural land, even if belonging to the Endowment, has to be dealt with only under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act of 1956 and not under the Endowments Act of 1987, and holding so, set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 21-9-1988 in OA No. 45/88 whereby the petitioner was treated as an encroacher within the meaning of the Explanation given to Sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987.
10. The position of law that emerges from the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench of this Court is that, even if a tenant is in possession of agricultural land covered by the provisions of the Endowments Act of 1987, he can be proceeded with only under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1956 and not otherwise. In other words, even after the expiry of the period of lease granted by the first respondent, it is renewable for a period of another six years and so and so forth Under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1956 and he cannot be ejected otherwise than under the provisions of Section 13 Ibid. He cannot be treated as an encroacher under the provisions of Section 83 of the Endowments Act of 1987 merely on the ground that the period of lease has expired and, therefore, he becomes an encroacher, particularly when the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not applicable to the lease of lands belonging to the institutions endowed for the purposes of charitable and religious institutions under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1966 (old) and the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1987 - vide Section 18(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1956. It is apposite to mention that Section 82 of the Endowments Act of 1987 has been declared unconstitutional and has been struck down as void ab initio by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. Narayana (1 supra) and, therefore, the legal position is that the unamended Section 82 alone will be in force and thus the Tenancy law which was applicable to the temple lands would continue to be operative, vide Sri Venkateswara Temple v. Kode Brahmam, 1993 (1) An.W.R. 143.
11. In view of what is stated above, there appears to be no force in the contention of the learned counsel of the respondents that, immediately after the expiry of lease, a lessee becomes an encroacher Under Section 83 of the Endowments Act of 1987 and he cannot be automatically treated as a lessee for a period of six years by provisions of Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1956 on the ground that it is inapplicable.
12. In result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30-6-1989 whereby the public auction held is quashed. The first respondent shall be at liberty to take action against the petitioners Under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1956 according to law. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.