Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dega Babi Reddy And Ors. vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 15 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(6)ALD214
Author: Goda Raghuram
Bench: Goda Raghuram
ORDER Goda Raghuram, J.
1. The petitioners assail the conduct of an auction for grant of leasehold rights of lands in various extents i.e., Ac. 4.40 cents in Sy. No. 95/2, Ac. 2.00 in Sy. No. 4363, Ac. 1.71 in Sy. No. 294, Ac. 8.23 in Sy. Nos. 4363, 4359, 4364/A, 4365, 4366, 4367, 4362, 4361 and 4363 of North Mopur Village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, an agricultural property belonging to the 3rd respondent-Sri Rebala Kodanda Rami Reddy Charities, North Mopur Village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District.
2. The petitioners claim to have been in possession of these lands, to be cultivating it, to be raising paddy crop and paying annual Maktha regularly to the Charitable institution, since long; the leases are stated to have been orally granted in 1980. The petitioners do not plead, establish or demonstrate that they are the lawful cultivating tenants of the 3rd respondent institution's lands, on the basis of duly executed lease deeds.
3. Rule 7 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Rules') and the provisions of similar rules earlier to these; whether made under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the New Act'), as well as the general principles of Administrative Law and authoritative precedents, obligate Endowment properties to be alienated including by way of lease only by a transparent public process in a manner which would ensure the fetching of a competitive return on Endowment properties and not by clandestine and sub-rosa private understandings between Endowment Officers or Managers of temples and private individuals. The unauthorized occupation of the Endowment lands by the petitioners without a lease deed executed in their favour by or on behalf of the Endowment after following the due process of law; substantive and procedural, would not elevate the occupation of the petitioners to the status of cultivating tenants as understood by the provisions of the New Act. Cultivating tenant in Section 82 of the New Act must be understood to denote cultivating tenant under a lawful duly executed lease and not one that is the product of ultra vires conduct of the State actors in defiance of the legislative mandate - see in this connection - (Bhudan Singh v. Nabi Bux ). There is no exclusion in this principle by the mere fact that the petitioners are in such an unauthorized occupation since 1980 or times immemorial. The petitioners do not claim any prescriptive title or ownership to the lands in question.
4. In the circumstances above, as the petitioners are not cultivating tenants within the meaning of the said expression qua Section 82 of the New Act or the Rules, the petitioners cannot be considered to be landless poor persons for the benefits under Section 82 of the Act. As they are encroachers, as is apparent, they cannot resist the impugned notification issued by the 3rd respondent-Charitable institution, proposing conduct of a public auction for grant of leasehold rights of its lands. The petitioners have no locus standi to claim any such relief.
5. On the analysis above, there are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. The respondents are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings for the petitioners' eviction in accordance with law, including under Section 83 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.