L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioners filed this batch of writ petitions, feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 30.4.2008, passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, as the 2nd respondent in the writ petitions; setting aside the individual orders dated 19.9.2003, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, the 3rd respondent.
2. One Donthireddy Ramakrishna Reddy, the grandfather of the petitioners herein, was granted lease in respect of Ac.3.09 cents of land, in Sy. No. 110 of Tadepally Village, Guntur District, owned by Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, the 4th respondent herein; under lease deed dated 19.7.1939. The petitioners state that during the lifetime of Ramakrishna Reddy, his three sons, viz., Akkireddy, Subba Reddy and Venkata Reddy, were separately cultivating the extents of Ac.1.13 cents Ac.1.00 cents, and Ac.1.19 cents respectively, and that separate leases were granted by the Managing Trustee of the 4th respondent-Temple. The petitioner in WP Nos. 11166, 11182, 11183 and 11185 of 2008 are said to be the sons of Subba Reddy, and petitioners in WP Nos. 11187 and 11188 of 2008 are sons of Akkireddy.
3. They plead that the land, that was being cultivated by their respective fathers, was divided among themselves, and they are cultivating the land for the last several years.
4. Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the 1987 Act'), brought about statutory termination of all the tenancies, in respect of agricultural lands, owned by Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. The vires of this provision were in challenge and it was only in the recent past, that the Supreme Court upheld its legality. Even while bringing about automatic termination of lease, the section provided for certain benefits in favour of lessees, who are declared as landless poor.
5. Petitioners filed individual applications before the 3rd respondent with a prayer to declare them as landless poor. The 3rd respondent passed individual orders dated 19.9.2003, accepting the claims of the petitioners, and declaring them as landless poor.
6. Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple was brought under the administrative control of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Temple, Vijayawada, in the year 2001. The Temple, under the new administrative set up, which now stands described as 4th respondent, preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent, accompanied by applications, for condonation of delay. The 2nd respondent passed a common order dated 23.4.2008, condoning the delay. Thereafter, he has taken up Appeals, and vide common order dated 30.4.2008, he allowed the appeals, and set aside the orders dated 19.9.2003, passed by the 3rd respondent.
7. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent did not follow the correct procedure, be it, while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, or the appeals. They state that the 2nd respondent did not give them proper opportunity to present their case. They also plead that the order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained on merits, and that none of the reasons, mentioned by him, can be sustained in law.
8. The 4th respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit, opposing the plea of the petitioners. According to it, the petitioners were never granted any leases, and they are not entitled for the benefit of Section 82 of the Act. It is pleaded that the land is no longer put to agricultural use, and has assumed residential and commercial utility. They state that the land is needed for the purpose of construction of choultries and offices.
9. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were not given adequate opportunity by the 2nd respondent to contest the applications filed by the 4th respondent for condonation of delay. He submits that though the petitioners approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the common orders dated 23.4.2008, condoning the delay; and obtained interim orders, the 2nd respondent had not only proceeded to decide the Appeals, but also had antedated the order. He further contends that the tenancy, in favour of the petitioners, was recognized for the past several decades and as such, it cannot be said that they are not the lessees for a period of six years, prior to the commencement of the Act. He submits that the view taken by the 2nd respondent, that orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 92, dated 30.1.2008 apply to the land, is incorrect, since it is neither part of Municipal Corporation, nor any Municipality. He has urged certain other grounds also.
10. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand, submit that the petitioners were given adequate opportunity to contest the interlocutory applications for condonation of delay, as well as the main appeals. According to them, there was no tenancy in favour of the petitioners, or for that matter, their predecessors, for six years prior to the commencement of the Act; and that unauthorized occupation or cultivation, even by paying rents, cannot be treated as a lease, unless it was granted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. They contend that even assuming that the petitioners can be treated as lessees, the leases cannot be continued, beyond the statutory termination, inasmuch as the 4th respondent intends to use the land for non-agricultural purposes.
11. On the basis of the facts mentioned above, and the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties, this Court finds that the following questions arise for consideration, viz.,
(1) whether the 2nd respondent committed any procedural irregularity, while disposing of the applications filed by the 4th respondent for condonation of delay in presenting the appeals, or the appeals themselves;
(2) whether there existed a valid lease in favour of the petitioners, in respect of the lands in question;
(3) whether the petitioners are entitled to be declared as landless poor, in terms of Section 82 of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder, and
(4) whether the 4th respondent is under obligation to continue the petitioners as lessees.
Question No. 1:
12. The petitioners have approached the 3rd respondent with a prayer to declare them as landless poor, obviously to avail the benefit under Section 82 of the Act. Through individual orders dated 19.9.2003, the 3rd respondent allowed the applications. The 4th respondent preferred appeals with a delay of 1244 days, and applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were filed for condonation of delay. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent issued notices to the petitioners and that they have appeared through their advocate, on 5.3.2008. The 2nd respondent passed a detailed and reasoned order, dated 23.4.2008, not only referring to the grounds pleaded by the 4th respondent for condonation of delay, but also the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners, opposing the applications. The petitioners have, in fact, filed a batch of writ petitions, assailing the order dated 23.4.2008. After the delay was condoned, the appeals were taken up for hearing.
13. A perusal of the common order dated 30.4.2008 passed in the appeals discloses that, on 23.4.2008 itself, the 2nd respondent granted liberty to the parties to file written arguments within three days. The petitioners do not appear to have filed any written arguments. The 2nd respondent has taken into account, the submissions made on behalf of the 4th respondent as well as the petitioners and allowed the appeals. It is not as if the appeals were disposed of on the same day, on which the delay was condoned. The 2nd respondent did not set the petitioners ex parte. The submission made on their behalf were taken into account. This Court does not find any procedural irregularity in the proceedings before the 2nd respondent. Question No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Question Nos. 2 and 3:
14. Question Nos. 2 and 3 deserve to be discussed together. Substantial changes were brought about through Act 30 of 1987, in the administration of Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. Section 82 of the Act brought about termination of leases in respect of agricultural lands, held by the Institutions, irrespective of the tenure and nature of such tenancies. It reads as under:
Section 82. Lease of Agricultural Lands: (1) Any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this 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.
(2) In respect of leases of agricultural lands held by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person shall have the right to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five percentum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal installments in the manner prescribed. Such sale may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public auction:Provided that if such small and marginal farmers who are not able to purchase the land will continue as tenants provided, if they agree to pay at least two third of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount.
15. Even while bringing about automatic termination of leases, the section made special provision in favour of lessees, who are recognized as landless poor, and conferred twofold benefit: The first is that, in case the institution intends to sell the leased land, the tenant declared as landless poor, shall have a preferential right to purchase the same at a subsidized cost The second is that, in case the land is not sold, but being leased out, such lessee would be entitled to continue as lessee, on payment of 2/3rd of the market rent, fixed for similarly placed lands. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is conferred with the power to determine the claims of lessees, as. landless poor, and appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is provided to the Joint Commissioner.
16. The Government framed Rules, prescribing the parameters for determination of the claim, of a lessee, for being declared as landless poor. They include the income of the individual, as well as the landed property, held by him. The conditions are mutually exclusive, and even the land under lease is to be reckoned for this purpose.
17. The claim that may be made by a lessee, to declare him as landless poor, is subject to an important condition, viz., that he must have been a lessee for a period of not less than six years, before the commencement of the Act. If the period of tenancy falls short of six years, or if there is no valid lease, even if the claim cannot be accepted, even if the person fits into the parameters.
18. The petitioners claim that themselves and their ancestors were continuing as lessees, in respect of the lands in question, for the past several decades, and thereby, they are entitled to be recognized landless poor. It was already mentioned that the tenancy commenced with the execution of the lease deed by the Managing Trustee of the Temple, way back on 19.7.1939, in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners. The period of lease was five years. A specific condition was incorporated to the effect that on expiry of five years, the possession of the land shall be given back to the lessor.
19. Under the law governing the tenancies of institutions, a lease can be granted only for a period of three years, and approval of the Government is necessary for grant of leases, exceeding three years. Under Section 70 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, which was repealed by the Act 1987, any lease, for a period exceeding six years was to be null and void, unless it was executed with prior sanction of the Government. Therefore, with the expiry of five years stipulated in the lease deed, dated 19.7.1939, the lease in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners became inoperative. It is a different matter that the prescribed procedure was to be followed to resume possession. Such a procedure is virtually dispensed with in cases of statutory termination by operation of Section 82 of the 1987 Act.
20. Secondly, no lease deeds were executed in favour of the sons of original lessee, Ramakrishna Reddy, or his grandsons, the petitioners herein. The mere continuance of an individual in possession of the land, without there being validly executed lease, cannot bring about a lease, particularly in the context of conferring benefits under Section 82 of the Act. In Dega Babi Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh : 2006(6)ALD214 , a Division Bench of this Court held as under:.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 understanding between Endowment Officers or managers of temples and private individuals. The unauthorized occupation of the Endowment lands by the petitions without a lease deed executed in their favour by or on behalf of the Endowment after following the due process or law; substantive and procedural, would not elevate 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 (Bhudan Singh v. Nabi Bux : [1970]2SCR10 . There is no exclusion of 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...
The said principle squarely applies to the facts of this case. Even assuming that the lease granted in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners on 19.7.1939 is to be treated as continuous one, the petitioners cannot be declared as landless poor. The reason is that the entire property held by the original lessee, Ramakrishna Reddy, together with the land leased to him, was liable to be taken into account, in determining the claim.
21. The subsequent partitions, spread over three generations, have to be ignored for this limited purpose. The petitioners filed their applications by pleading that they are tenants of 25 cents or 56 cents of the land, owned by the 4th respondent. Such a plea cannot be accepted. The result is that, neither the petitioners can be treated as lessees of the land, owned by the 4th respondent, much less they can be recognized as landless poor.
Question No. 4:
22. Coming to the 4th question, it needs to be noted that the right of a lessee, vis-avis the lands held by religious institutions, be it, under 1966 Act or 1987 Act, are to be determined and worked out only as long as the land is put to agricultural use. If the institution wants to put the land to non-agricultural use, or it becomes impossible to continue the cultivation, there is nothing in law, which enables the lessee to continue with the possession of the land or to insist that the lease must continue. The rights and needs of the religious institutions are of paramount consideration, under the 1987 Act The facility created for grant of leases cannot be projected or interpreted to such an extreme level, as to deny freedom to the institution, to put the property to any other use. In such an event, the endowment of the property tends to become the one, in favour of the lessee, than the one in favour of the Religious Institution; and the intention of the donor of the property would stand subverted.
23. It needs to be kept in mind that the Supreme Court categorically held that the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, and A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950, do not apply to the leases, in respect of the lands owned by religious institutions. The Legislature has also amended the Act in the year 2002, to the said effect.
24. In the instant case, the 4th respondent has not only pleaded that the land has become part of urban agglomeration, but also that it is needed for its immediate and genuine necessities of construction of choutries etc. The petitioners are not able to point out that the facts pleaded by the 4th respondent, in this regard, are not correct. Even assuming that the petitioners were entitled to be treated as lessees or recognized as landless poor, their right remains, subordinate, to the needs of the institution. Such rights can be enforced only when the land is, or, is capable of being put to agricultural use. No lessee can take away the freedom of the institution, to put the property held by it, to a particular use. Acceptance of such far-fetched claim would be contrary to law, apart from being opposed to larger public cause.
25. There is another angle from which the matter needs to be examined. The value of land in question is now said to be in terms of, crores of rupees, per acre. In the event of being recognized as the landless poor, the petitioners would have a right to purchase it, at 75% of the market value.
26. A clear contradiction in terms, comes into existence, where a person is recognized or declared as a landless poor, on account of his meagre income, on the one hand, and is conferred with the right to purchase property, worth crores of rupees, on the other. This, never was the intention of the principal or the subordinate legislation.
27. Viewed from any angle, the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
28. Before parting with the case, it is felt necessary to direct the respondents to ensure that development activities at Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple are also taken up in large scale, particularly when a value of property of that Temple is put to common use of the other Temples also.