1. Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, the petitioner herein, assails the proceedings dated 22.01.2005 of the Assistant Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the fourth respondent, and the appellate order dated 16.09.2005 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District, the third respondent, in Appeal No.19 of 2005 confirming the same, whereby and whereunder it was held that the petitioner Sangham was not eligible to claim benefit under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1987'). The petitioner Sangham seeks a consequential declaration that its members are landless poor persons and that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 82 of the Act of 1987 in respect of the lands held by them on lease belonging to Sri R.V.B.S.Choultry, Peddapuram, the fifth respondent.
2. This Court, by interim order dated 21.06.2007, directed status quo obtaining as on that day as to the nature and possession of the lands in question to be maintained for four weeks. The same was extended by two weeks under order dated 28.08.2007 and by a further period of three weeks under order dated 09.10.2007. Thereafter, when the matter was listed for hearing on 30.04.2008 upon the vacate stay petition filed by the fifth respondent Choultry in WVMP No.1435 of 2008, this Court, taking note of the fact that there was no order existing as on that day, observed that the question of vacating the interim order dated 21.06.2007 did not arise. Thereupon, the petitioner Sangham filed WPMP No.14567 of 2008 seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject lands in Survey Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village pending disposal of the writ petition. By order dated 29.05.2008, this Court again directed status quo obtaining as on that day to be maintained as to the properties in question until further orders.
3.Aggrieved thereby, the fifth respondent Choultry filed Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008. A learned Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 06.08.2008, allowed the said appeal quashing the order of status quo granted by the learned single Judge and directed that the subject lands, after deducting the acquired extent of Ac.31.42 cents in R.S.No.171 of Peddapuram Village, shall be given on lease to the petitioner Sangham upto 30.04.2009 on a total lease rent of Rs.4,00,000/- . The Bench directed that if the possession of the lands in question was not with the petitioner Sangham, the fifth respondent Choultry shall hand over the same to the petitioner Sangham on the following conditions as to payment of the lease rent:
i) Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the fifth respondent Choultry on or before 11.08.2008;
ii) Rs.50,000/- shall be paid on or before 07.09.2008;
iii) Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid on or before 30.04.2009.
Thereafter, the petitioner Sangham filed WPMP No.10667 of 2009 in the writ petition to permit it to continue as a tenant in respect of the subject lands admeasuring Ac.106.00 cents in R.S.Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village on the same terms and conditions spelt out in the order dated 06.08.2008 in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008, without prejudice to its rights in the writ petition. By order dated 21.04.2009, this Court ordered the said WPMP on the condition that the petitioner Sangham paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 30.04.2009 as per the order in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008. Having complied with the said direction, the petitioner Sangham claims to have tendered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the fifth respondent Choultry for the next year and alleged that due to inaction on the part of the fifth respondent Choultry the said payment was not received on or before 11.08.2009, in keeping with the time stipulation in the order in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008. It accordingly filed WPMP No.23172 of 2009 seeking extension of time for making the said payment, from 11.08.2009 to 18.08.2009. This WPMP was ordered by this Court on 28.08.2009. At this stage, the fifth respondent Choultry filed WVMP No.2400 of 2009 to vacate the interim order dated 21.04.2009 whereby the benefit of the order dated 06.08.2008 passed in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008 was extended in favour of the petitioner Sangham beyond 30.04.2009.
3. The matter was listed for hearing upon the two vacate applications filed by the fifth respondent Choultry viz., WVMP Nos.1435 of 2008 and 2400 of 2009. As copious and comprehensive arguments were advanced by the learned counsel covering the whole gamut of the controversy raised in the writ petition, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel.
4. It is the case of the petitioner Sangham that it comprises landless poor farmers and was formed in the year 1977-78. It obtained a lease in respect of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.137.92 cents in Survey Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village belonging to the fifth respondent Choultry at an annual rental of Rs.8,000/-. Initially, the petitioner Sangham is stated to have consisted of 51 members. According to the petitioner Sangham all its members resolved in the general body meeting held on 05.09.1981 to change the name of the Sangham from 'Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram' to 'Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram'. Accordingly, with effect from 05.09.1981 Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, became defunct and in its place Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, came into existence. It is stated that there was however no change in the members of the Sangham.
5. Reference is made to the litigation initiated by the fifth respondent Choultry. ATC No.27 of 1990 was filed by the fifth respondent Choultry before the Special Officer for Tenancy Cases-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, on 17.08.1990 for eviction. This case was dismissed on 30.11.1999 and aggrieved thereby, the fifth respondent Choultry preferred an appeal in ATA No.176 of 1999 before the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, which was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2005 holding that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 had no application to these leasehold lands in view of the amendment to Section 82 of the Act of 1987. The appellate Court left it open to the aggrieved party to approach the competent authority under the Act of 1987 for redressal. The fifth respondent Choultry was directed not to disturb the possession of the tenants except by due process of law.
6. The fifth respondent Choultry also filed O.S.No.22 of 1996 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for recovery of rents to the tune of Rs.22,956/- for the years 1992-93 to 1994-95. By Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.1999, the trial Court held that Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was the successor of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, and that it was continuing in possession of the leasehold lands. The trial Court further held that in spite of the successor Sangham tendering rent to the Choultry it had refused the same constraining the successor Sangham to deposit the rents in the tenancy Court. Observing that the Choultry was at liberty to withdraw the same, the trial Court dismissed the suit. This Judgment has admittedly attained finality.
7. While things stood thus, the petitioner Sangham addressed representation dated 23.09.2003 to the fourth respondent seeking recognition of its members as landless poor persons, as defined in the first Explanation to Section 82 of the Act of 1987, and the consequential benefits reserved thereunder for such persons. Pertinent to note, the second Explanation to this provision was introduced only in the year 2008. The representation was taken on file by the fourth respondent as M.A.No.389 of 2004 and by order dated 22.01.2005, the petitioner Sangham's request was rejected on the ground that there was no valid lease in its favour and that it did not fulfill the requirements to be declared as landless poor persons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Sangham filed Appeal No.19 of 2005 before the third respondent which met with failure when it was dismissed under order dated 16.09.2005. These two proceedings are subjected to challenge in this writ petition.
8. The fifth respondent Choultry stated in its counter that the amount fixed as the total rent under order dated 06.08.2008 in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2008 worked out to a meager sum of Rs.3,774/- per acre and alleged that if these lands were put to public auction they would easily fetch Rs.8,000/- per acre. The Choultry contended that the petitioner Sangham was continuing in occupation of its lands without any approved lease and accordingly sought vacation of the order dated 21.04.2009 passed in WPMP No.10667 of 2009 in W.P.No.488 of 2006. In its earlier counter filed in this writ petition, the fifth respondent Choultry stated that the subject lands were leased out to one M.Sreeramulu for a period of six years from 1973-74 to 1978-79. Upon surrender of the lands by the said lessee, who had been cultivating it through third parties, viz., one P.Appa Rao and 50 others, the fifth respondent Choultry stated that the lease was granted in favour of these actual cultivators who formed into an association, by name Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram. It is stated that the Secretary of this association submitted a representation in this regard and upon the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, confirming that the members of the association were the actual cultivators, the Choultry granted a lease in their favour subject to the condition that they pay the arrears of rentals of M.Sreeramulu. It was in these circumstances that a lease was granted for a period of six years from 1979-80 to 1984-85 in favour of the Sangham on payment of an annual maktha of Rs.8,000/-.
9. According to the fifth respondent Choultry, owing to disputes amongst the members of the Sangham, Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham was formed and no lease was granted by it to this new Sangham. Alleging that Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, its lessee, had sub-leased the lands to Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, the fifth respondent Choultry filed ATC No.27 of 1990 before the District Munsif, Peddapuram, for its eviction and after dismissal thereof, Appeal No.176 of 1999 before the District Court, East Godavari. The fifth respondent Choultry denied that the petitioner could claim the status of 'landless poor person' as defined in the first Explanation to Section 82 of the Act of 1987 and supported the orders passed by the fourth respondent and the third respondent holding to that effect.
10. In its reply, the petitioner Sangham stated that it was continuing in possession of the subject lands pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and that its members had invested substantial sums to raise crops of tapioca, cotton and cereals. It denied the contention of the fifth respondent Choultry that the lands would fetch more income than that fixed by this Court and opposed the vacation of the interim order granted on 21.04.2009 by this Court. In a separate reply to the earlier counter of the fifth respondent Choultry, the petitioner Sangham stated that it had been registered as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1860') with Registration No.631 of 1981 dated 30.11.1981. It placed reliance on the certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapuram, in Rc.No.3994/2003 dated 21.09.2003 stating that it's members had no other land in Peddapuram, and in Rc.No.3778/2003 dated 07.09.2003 certifying that the landholding of each member of the petitioner Sangham qualified him/her as a small farmer/landless poor person. It relied upon the finding of the Tenancy Court in ATC No.27 of 1990 rejecting the stand of the fifth respondent Choultry that there was a sub-lease between Sannakaru Rythu Sangham and Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham and the categorical finding that they were one and the same. Reference is also made to the Judgment of the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.22 of 1996 in this regard. It denied the claim of the fifth respondent Choultry that its members did not fulfill the requirements to qualify as landless poor persons and contested the approach of the authorities in treating the petitioner Sangham as a single unit instead of looking to its constituents, the members thereof.
11. The fifth respondent Choultry, a charitable institution in terms of the Act of 1987, owned an extent of Ac.137.92 cents in Survey Nos.81 to 88 and 171 of Peddapuram Village. It is an admitted fact that after the surrender of the lease of these lands by the erstwhile lessee, Sreeramulu, the lands were given on lease to the persons who had actually cultivated them under Sreeramulu. These 51 persons formed into an association called Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, and the lease was granted to it on payment of an annual maktha of Rs.8,000/-. This lease was for a period of six years from 1979-80 to 1984-85. The proceedings dated 24.05.1979 issued by the office of the Commissioner, Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, demonstrate that the said lease through private negotiations was accepted by the authorities. In effect, the lease in favour of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was a valid one, having been executed in accordance with due procedure. It is an admitted fact that an extent of Ac.31.42 cents situated in Survey No.171 of the village out of the total extent of Ac.137.92 cents belonging to the fifth respondent Choultry was acquired by the State for providing house sites to weaker sections. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Sangham, stated on instructions that his client was restricting its claim in the present writ petition to the balance extent of land after excluding this acquired land. In that view of the matter, no orders are required in WPMP No.21801 of 2008 filed by the officers of the State seeking to come on record in this writ petition to protect the State's interests.
12. The validity of the transition whereby Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, became Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, need not be gone into by this Court in the present writ petition as the findings of the competent Civil Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, in the Judgment dated 30.11.1999 in O.S.No.22 of 1996 are binding on the fifth respondent Choultry in so far as this aspect is concerned. Admittedly, this Judgment attained finality and the fifth respondent Choultry, being a party thereto, cannot be permitted to re-open issues that stood settled thereunder. The specific finding of the Civil Court that Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham was the successor of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham and that only the names had changed but the identity remained the same, would therefore bind the fifth respondent Choultry.
13. The contention of the fifth respondent Choultry that no lease was executed thereafter in favour of the petitioner Sangham and it could not therefore maintain an application for its members to be recognized as landless poor cultivating tenants under Section 82 of the Act of 1987 cannot be accepted. Though the agricultural lease granted in favour of the Sangham was initially for a period of six years upto 1984-85, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 it had to be construed to be a lease in perpetuity. It was only under Section 82 of the Act of 1987 that these leases stood cancelled by operation of law.
14. A learned Judge of this Court in PAVULURI RAMAIAH V/s. STATE OF A.P.1 held Section 82 of the Act of 1987 to be unconstitutional. The same was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in SAMADHI NARAYANA V/s. STATE OF A.P.2. On 29.08.2001, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V/s. NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI3 and held Section 82 of the Act of 1987 to be lawful and valid. Thereafter, by Amendment Act No.27 of 2002, clause (5) was inserted in Section 82 whereby the Tenancy Acts were made retrospectively inapplicable to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment as defined in the Act.
15. During the pendency of the aforestated litigation revolving around the validity of the provision, the fifth respondent Choultry, in recognition of the fact that the lease executed in favour of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, continued even after the expiry of the six year period ending with the year 1984-85, filed ATC No.27 of 1990 before the Special Officer for Tenancy Cases-cum-Principal District Munsif, Peddapuram, seeking eviction on the ground that the lessee Sangham had sub-leased the lands in favour of Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram. Significantly, the Choultry did not plead that the lease had expired and seek eviction on that ground. The Tribunal on facts held that no sub-lease was proved and that the evidence on record revealed that the members of both the associations were one and the same and as Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, had become defunct, Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, had been registered as the new entity.
16. Aggrieved by these findings, the fifth respondent Choultry filed an appeal in ATA No.176 of 1999 which came to be decided by the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, after the decision of the Supreme Court in NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI3. The appellate authority therefore held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 had no application to the subject lease and accordingly dismissed the appeal leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.
17. The fifth respondent Choultry had also instituted a suit in O.S.No.22 of 1996 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for recovery of rents from Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, for the years 1992-93 to 1994- 95. Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was impleaded separately as the second defendant in the suit. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, found on facts that though the name had changed, the members of both the Sanghams were the same; that Sri Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, was the successor of Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram; and that it continued in possession of the leasehold lands in that status. As the successor Sangham had deposited the rents due before the Tenancy Court, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, opined that there was no default in the payment of rents and accordingly dismissed the suit. This Judgment attained finality and the issues decided therein would be binding on the parties thereto and cannot be re-opened at this stage, being barred by the principles of res judicata. (RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE V/s. VITHU HIRA MAHAR4 and MOHANLAL GOENKA V/s. BENOY KISHNA MUKHERJEE5). Thus, the petitioner Sangham, being the successor of the earlier Sangham, continued as the lawful lessee of the fifth respondent Choultry till Section 82 of the Act of 1987 came into force.
18. DEGA BABI REDDY v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.6, relied upon by Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel, is therefore distinguishable on facts as this Court found that the petitioners therein, who claimed the benefit of Section 82 of the Act of 1987, were in unauthorized occupation of the endowment lands without a lease deed executed in their favour by or on behalf of the endowment in accordance with the due process of law, substantive and procedural. Such unauthorized occupation therefore did not alleviate them to the status of cultivating tenants under the said provision.
19. Similar is the situation in AVUTHU SIVA PRASAD REDDY v. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GUNTUR7, wherein a learned Division Bench of this Court found that the person claiming the benefit of Section 82 of the Act of 1987 did not appear to be a lawful tenant recognizable in law as such.
20. After the Judgment of the Supreme Court in NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI3, and the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 in G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments.I) Department, dated 11.03.2003, the petitioner Sangham submitted an application to the fourth respondent seeking recognition of its members as landless poor cultivating tenants in terms of the first Explanation to Section 82 as amended by Act 27 of 2002. This application stood rejected by the fourth respondent and was confirmed thereafter by the third respondent in appeal.
21. Section 82 of the Act of 1987 as it presently stands reads as under:
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 (other than those lands situated in municipalities and municipal corporations) 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 per centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal instalments in the manner prescribed. Such sale may be effected otherwise than by order-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.
Explanation:-- For the purpose of this sub-section 'landless poor person' means a person whose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed 1.01,1715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.02,3430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other than from such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential property exceeding 200 square yards in urban area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property.
Explanation-II:-- For the purpose of this sub-section, small and marginal farmers means a person who being a lessee is holding lands in excess of acres 0.25 cents of wet land or acres 0.50 cents of dry land and over and above the ceiling limits of acres 2.50 wet or acres 5.00 dry land respectively they may be allowed to continue in lease subject to payment of 2/3rd of prevailing market rent and excess land held if any more than the above limits shall be put in public auction.
(3) The authority to sanction the lease or licence in respect of any property or any or interest thereon belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment, the manner in which and the period for which such lease or licence shall be such as may be prescribed.
(4) Every lease or licence of any immovable property, other than the agricultural land belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment subsisting on the date of the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force subject to the rules as may be prescribed under sub-section (3).
(5) The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 shall not apply to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institutions or endowment as defined in this Act."
23. In terms of clause (2) of Section 82 and the proviso thereunder, in the case of a lease of agricultural land held by a landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person is granted the right to either purchase the land or continue the lease. For availing this benefit, such person has to fulfill the requisites of being a landless poor person/small and marginal farmer as defined under the Explanations appended to Section 82(2). The first Explanation, which was holding the field at the time of rejection of the petitioner Sangham's request, requires such person to have not more than 2.5 acres of wet land or 5 acres of dry land, be it in his own right as an owner or as a cultivating tenant and not have a monthly income, other than from such lands, in excess of Rs.1,000/-.
24. The fourth respondent by his order dated 22.01.2005 held against the petitioner Sangham on two counts. One, that there was no valid lease in its favour and secondly, on the ground that it was not a small farmer as defined under the provisions of the Act of 1987 and was therefore not entitled to be recognized as a landless poor person. In appeal, the third respondent, by his order dated 16.09.2005, confirmed the order dated 22.01.2005 of the fourth respondent. This confirmation was on the ground that no lease was granted in favour of the petitioner Sangham which was formed with a different name with 56 members and that the initial lease was in favour of the Sannakaru Rythu Sangham with only 51 members. The third respondent therefore held that the Sangham had failed to prove that a lease was granted in its favour consequent upon the earlier lessee Sangham becoming defunct. Further, the third respondent held that the extent of Ac.137.92 cents said to be the leasehold lands of the Sangham was far in excess of the limits prescribed for a landless poor person, thereby disentitling the Sangham to aspire for the benefits of Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987. In so far as the ground relating to the non-existence of a lease in favour of the new Sangham is concerned, in the light of the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 to the subject lease till the year 1987, the petitioner Sangham, being the successor-in-interest of the original lessee Sangham, must be deemed to have continued as the lawful lessee of the fifth respondent Choultry in respect of these lands though the initial lease was only for a period of six years which ended in the year 1984-85. This was the understanding of the fifth respondent Choultry also, as is evidenced by its stand in the litigation initiated by it before the Tenancy Court and the Civil Court. The finding of the respondent authorities that there was no lease existing in its favour as on the crucial date in the year 1987 is therefore incorrect.
26. The distinction sought to be drawn between the petitioner Sangham and its predecessor, Sannakaru Rythu Sangham, Peddapuram, has already been dealt with supra and cannot be accepted in the light of the findings of the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.22 of 1996 which constitutes res judicata. The mere fact that the earlier Sangham comprised 51 members and due to the death of some of the members, its numbers had swelled to 56 owing to induction of the heirs of such deceased members by the time its successor, the petitioner Sangham, was formed, does not detract from or dilute the finding in O.S.No.22 of 1996 that the new Sangham is the successor of the old one. The reasoning of both the authorities on this count must therefore fail.
27. In so far as the other ground is concerned, the respondent authorities opined that the petitioner Sangham must be taken to be a single unit and as it was cultivating an extent of over 100 acres, it did not fulfill the requirement stipulated in the first Explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 for aspiring to the status of a 'landless poor person'. It is however the case of Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Sangham, that this approach on the part of the authorities is wholly irrational and illegal. The learned counsel would submit that it is not the Sangham as a unit which must be looked at for the purpose of deciding the issue but it should be seen whether its members individually fulfilled such requirement. He placed reliance on case law to support his contention that this Court would be entitled to lift the corporate veil for doing justice to the members of the petitioner Sangham. He also relied upon the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1987. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner Sangham was registered under the provisions of the Act of 1860. The legal character of a society registered under the Act of 1860 has been determined by case law to mean that it would not be conferred the status of a body corporate or a corporation having a distinct legal entity from the members constituting it, in the sense of a company under the Companies Act, 1956 or a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1964. However, it has its own identity, personality or entity for certain limited purposes which would set it apart from that of its members. It is only under Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 that a society registered thereunder is conferred the status of a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. This status however was not afforded to societies registered under the Act of 1860. Reference in this regard may be made to the Constitution Bench Judgment in BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AYURVEDIC AND UNANI TIBBIA COLLEGE V/s. STATE OF DELHI8, wherein the Supreme Court held that on registration under the Act of 1860, the old body of trustees of the college did not become a corporation in the sense of being incorporated within the meaning of Entry 44 of List I and that it remained and continued to be an unincorporated society though under several provisions of the Act of 1860 it had certain privileges, some of which were analogous to those of corporations. The Supreme Court reaffirmed thereafter in ILLACHI DEVI V/s. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS INDIA9 that a society registered under the Act of 1860 is neither a body corporate nor a juristic person and observed that mere registration of a society under the Act of 1860 would not make it distinct from an association of persons. The Supreme Court pointed out that the society so registered cannot own property or sue or be sued in its own name. It must sue or be sued through a person nominated in that behalf.
28. In DR.K.SUBBAIAH V/s. KRISHNAMACHARLU10, a learned Judge of this Court applied the ratio in ILLACHI DEVI7 and held that a society registered under the Act of 1860 is not a juristic person unlike a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. In the present case, the petitioner Sangham is suing through its authorized President and not in its own name independently. It is thus clear that the mere registration of the petitioner Sangham under the provisions of the Act of 1860 did not confer upon it an identity, distinct and separate from that of its members for all purposes. As the petitioner Sangham as a unit was legally incapable of owning leasehold rights in its own name, such rights must be deemed to have devolved upon its members though the lease stood in the name of the Sangham. The issue of lifting the corporate veil would therefore not arise and the decisions cited in this regard are accordingly eschewed from consideration.
29. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1987 reflects that, while providing for termination of agricultural leases over lands of temples and charitable institutions, protection was afforded to landless poor cultivating tenants by enabling them to purchase such lands. The unamended Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 entitled such a landless poor person to purchase the land held by him on lease and in the event he failed to do so, the proviso thereunder stipulated that such lease would be deemed to have been terminated. However, under Amendment Act No.27 of 2002, this proviso was amended whereby such a landless poor person, in the event he was not able to purchase the land held by him on lease, was directed to be continued as a tenant by paying the stipulated market rent. The thrust of this provision is therefore two fold - one, to protect the interests of the religious or charitable institution or endowment by freeing its lands from leases which were adverse to its interest and which hitherto stood protected by the Tenancy Laws and two, to protect landless poor cultivating tenants who were holding such lands on lease, subject to their fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the provision.
30. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in BHARAT SINGH V/s. MANAGEMENT OF NEW DELHI TUBERCULOSIS CENTRE, NEW DELHI11, the objects and reasons give an insight into the background why the Section was introduced and though it cannot be the ultimate guide in interpretation of the statute, it oftentimes aids in finding out what really persuaded the legislature to enact a particular provision. As observed by the Supreme Court, Acts aimed at social amelioration giving benefits to the have-nots should receive liberal construction and it would be the duty of the Court to give such construction to a statute as would promote the purpose or object of the Act. It is a recognized rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used in a statute should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonize with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature [M/S.P.VAIKUNTA SHENOY AND CO. V/s. P.HARI SHARMA12].
31. It is in the backdrop of the aforestated legal principles that the provisions of Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 have to be construed, interpreted and applied. Section 82(2) makes it clear that a lease of an agricultural land held by a landless poor person for not less than six years continuously would entitle him to either purchase such land or seek continuation of its lease as per the conditions stipulated in the provision. The proviso makes this amply clear by stating that if such small and marginal farmers are not able to purchase the land, they will continue as tenants provided they agree to pay at least two thirds of the market rent of similarly placed lands as the lease amount. The first Explanation defines as to who should be considered a landless poor person while the second Explanation defines a small and marginal farmer. The emphasis in the provision is upon granting benefit thereunder to the farmer who fulfills the requirements stipulated under the explanations to the provision for aspiring to the status of a landless poor person/small and marginal farmer. It would therefore be the 'individual farmer' who is the cultivating tenant of the agricultural land belonging to the institution/endowment who is to be given the benefit of this welfare legislation.
32. In such circumstances, merely because the farmers in the present case came together to form an association which was registered under the Act of 1860, it cannot be construed that they lost their individual status as landless poor persons/small and marginal farmers and the entity of the association must be taken as the unit for the purpose of application of this provision. The use of the word 'person' in the above provision cannot therefore have the legal meaning ascribed to it under the General Clauses Act, 1897 to include an association or body of individuals. The first Explanation puts this beyond doubt by referring to 'person' in the context of an individual by stating that a landless poor person means a 'person' whose total extent of land holding either as the owner or as a cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed the stipulated limit and whose monthly income other than from such lands does not exceed the stipulated limit. It is further stated therein that those tenants who own residential property exceeding the stipulated limit shall also not be construed to be landless poor persons. The 'small and marginal farmer' mentioned in this provision and now defined in the second Explanation, cannot therefore have reference to a body of farmers as a unit. As the petitioner Sangham was registered under the Act of 1860 and as it is not conferred with the status of a body corporate for all purposes, it cannot be construed that it had a legal entity apart from and distinct and separate from its members. The petitioner Sangham could not therefore be tested as a unit to ascertain whether the requirements of Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 were fulfilled. The individual members thereof, being the actual cultivating tenants, ought to have been the focus for this purpose. The logomachy advanced by the respondent authorities in this regard militates against the very objective of this ameliorative social legislation. Further, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in ILLACHI DEVI7, a society registered under the Act of 1860 is incapable of ownership of property in its own name. The petitioner Sangham could not therefore be treated as a lessee in its own right independent of its members.
33. Thus, the authorities ought to have looked at the individual members of the petitioner Sangham for the purpose of deciding whether they fulfilled the requirements of Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 for claiming the status of 'landless poor persons'. The material produced by the petitioner Sangham, being the certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapuram, specifying the individual extents of their land holdings, ought to have been taken into consideration by them in this regard. Consequently, their conclusion that the petitioner Sangham had to be treated as a unit and that, as it was possessed of land in excess of the stipulated limit in the first Explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987, it could not be treated as a 'landless poor person', cannot be countenanced. The society as a unit could not be treated as the owner of the leasehold rights, being incapable of ownership of property.
34. It is the submission of Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel for the fifth respondent Choultry, that such a liberal construction would mean that there would be no end to the number of persons who can claim under the petitioner Sangham to be landless poor persons. This argument is fallacious on the face of it. The cut off date for the purpose of granting benefit under Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 is the year 1987 when the Act came into force and the aspiring beneficiaries have to prove that they were cultivating tenants for a period of six continuous years prior thereto. Unless the existing 56 members of the petitioner Sangham satisfy this requirement, they cannot claim to be landless poor persons. Further, their number cannot grow thereafter, basing on developments after the year 1987. The contentions of Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel, in this regard are therefore rejected.
35. For the reasons stated supra, this Court holds that both the grounds of rejection pressed into service by respondents 4 and 3 in their orders dated 22.01.2005 and 16.09.2005 respectively cannot be accepted.
36. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 22.01.2005 of the Assistant Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the fourth respondent, and the order dated 16.09.2005 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District, the third respondent, confirming the same in Appeal No.19 of 2005. The fourth respondent shall consider afresh the application made by the petitioner Sangham as one submitted individually by its members, existing as on the date of coming into force of the Act of 1987, and shall determine in the context of the certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapuram, and such other material as may be considered relevant, as to whether individually each such member fulfilled the requirements of the Explanations to Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 as existing presently.
37. The members of the petitioner Sangham shall be permitted to participate in this exercise and substantiate their claim by producing relevant proofs in support thereof. The benefit of Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 shall be extended to all such members of the petitioner Sangham who are found to satisfy the statutory requirements to claim the status of a 'landless poor person'/small and marginal farmer. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the parties shall continue to abide by the arrangement that subsisted during the pendency of this writ petition. WPMP No.21801 of 2008, WVMP Nos.1435 of 2008 and 2400 of 2009 shall stand dismissed along with all other miscellaneous petitions in the light of this final order. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.