Dismissed

Mudunuri Savithri v. The Asst. Commissioner (Endowments)

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2019WP/351/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging exemption of temple lands from A.P. Tenancy Act sought declaration of unconstitutional amendment. Court denied relief as validity was upheld in prior High Court Division Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Mudunuri Savithri Vs The Asst. Commissioner… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.351 of 2004

¶4

ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy }

¶5

This writ petition is filed questioning the amendment to Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 and declare the same as unconstitutional and invalid.

¶6

The petitioners are the tenants in the agricultural lands belonging to the temple. By virtue of the amended Act 28 of 2002, the provisions of A.P Tenancy Act cannot be applied to the lands belonging to the temples. Thus, the temple lands are exempted from application of the provisions of the A.P. Tenancy Act. The same is questioned on the ground that the petitioners are small farmers and they are in occupation of the lands belonging to the temple as tenants and are continuing to pay maktha to the temples.

¶7

The major ground raised by the petitioners is that a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad, in the judgment rendered in

¶8

Saithana Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. State of A.P. and Others¹

¶9

upheld the constitutional validity of A.P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 but it confined itself to the constitutional propriety of enacting such law and did not discuss about the resultant anomalies and discrimination pointed out in this writ petition, and therefore, the petitioners now challenged the amendment on the same ground, which was pointed out in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit in the writ petition, more particularly with regard to propriety of enacting such law.

¶10

1 2003(5) ALT 24

¶11

¶12

It is not known as to whether these contentions were raised before the earlier Division Bench in the case referred to supra or not, and for any reason, the propriety of enacting such law is questioned and a ground was raised to that effect. Though this Court did not discuss about those contentions, but rejected the claim of the petitioners. In such a case, the petitioners, if aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, would have preferred an appeal before the competent Court. But having kept quiet, the petitioners now cannot raise such contentions again questioning the propriety.

¶13

The learned Government Pleader for Endowments contended that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment referred to in the earlier paragraph. But the petitioners themselves referred to the judgment in the affidavit itself. Earlier, this Court did not consider the propriety of enactment by amended Act, 28 of 2002. If such contention is raised, the remedy open to the petitioners is elsewhere not in the present writ petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to declare Section 18 of the A.P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 as invalid, since the validity of the Amended Act 28 of 2002 was already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as stated above.

¶14