Dismissed

Tippagudisa Rosaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2021WP/17434/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a cultivating tenant of temple land less than two and a half cents, challenged the rejection of his application to be declared a landless poor person. The petitioner lacked a registered deed of lease, arguing rental receipts sufficed. The court held that per the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act and High Court precedents, a registered deed is essential to establish tenant status and pr

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, to be closed.

Tippagudisa Rosaiah Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17434 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner claims to be the cultivating tenant of Ac.1.00 cents of wet land belonging to the 4^th respondent-temple in Sy.No.903 of Santhamaguluru Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent to declare the petitioner as a landless poor person, so that the petitioner could continue as cultivating tenant of the Ac.1.00 acres of land in possession. This application was rejected by the 3^rd respondent, by proceedings dated 03.08.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Appeal No.30 of 2006 which was rejected by the 2^nd respondent on 06.02.2008. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9923 of 2008 before the erstwhile High Court of A.P which was disposed of by remanding the appeal to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent had again rejected the appeal by an order dated 28.06.2010 which is assailed in the present writ petition.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his family have been cultivating the land for more than the required six years prior to the coming in to force of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act, 1987’). The petitioner contends that a tenant who holds less than Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land respectively shall be entitled to be declared as a landless poor person in terms of

RRR,J

W.P.No.17434 of 2010

Sec.82 of the Act, 1987 and the order of the 2^nd respondent rejecting his application despite the fact that he falls squarely within the said definition is untenable and needs to be set-aside.

¶10

The 2^nd respondent, after giving adequate

¶11

opportunity to the petitioner, had held that –

¶12

1. The petitioner was able to show that he was paying Maktha to the temple only from the period 1986-87 onwards and the earlier Maktha was being paid by one M.Aseervadam. The contention of the appellant that M.Aseervadam was his father was not accepted as the affidavit submitted before the Assistant Commissioner by the petitioner showed that the name of the father of the petitioner was Chandraiah and not Aseervadam.

¶13

1. The petitioner did not have any registered deed of lease which is the basic requirement for being recognized as a landless poor person.

¶14

Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said order of rejection on the ground that the rental receipts produced are sufficient to show that the petitioner has been a tenant of the temple for more than six years prior to the commencement of the Act, 1987.

¶15

Section 82(2) of the Act read with Explanation stipulates that any person who holds a total extent of land, either as owner or as cultivating tenant, which is less than Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land would be

¶16

¶17

RRR,J W.P.No.17434 of 2010

¶18

declared as a landless poor person. Thereafter, any such landless poor person, who has a lease of agricultural land of an Endowment Institution for not less than six years continuously before the advent of the Act would have the right to purchase such lands for consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value or where the landless poor person is not able to purchase the land, he/she would continue as a tenant on payment of 2/3^rd of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount.

¶19

6. The erstwhile High Court of A.P in Dega Babi Reddy

¶20

Vs. Government of A.P^.,1 had held that only persons who have a registered deed of lease can be recognized as a cultivating tenant in terms of Section 82 of the Act, 1987 and mere payment of Makta and continuation in possession of the land would not confer the status of the cultivating tenant on the said person. This principle was further affirmed and followed by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in the case of Donthi Reddy Sambi Reddy Vs. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and Ors.²

¶21

In the present case, the petitioner does not have any registered deed of lease. The 2^nd respondent after referring to the above two judgments had held that the petitioner cannot be recognized as a cultivating tenant to give him the benefit of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, 1987. The 2^nd respondent had also held that the documents produced by the petitioner only demonstrated that he was at best in possession of the land

¶22

1 2006 (6) ALD 214

¶23

2 2008 (6) ALD 121

¶24

¶25

and paying Maktha only from the year 1986-87 and as such, was not in possession of the land for the requisite six years prior to the advent of the Act in 1987.

¶26

On the basis of the above findings, that the petitioner is not a landless poor person and that he was not in possession of the land as cultivating tenant for at least six years prior to the Act of 1987, the 2^nd respondent had rejected the appeal of the petitioner. In view of the law settled by the above two judgments and in view of the above findings, there is no scope for any interference by this Court.

¶27