The State of Ap Vs G Srinivasa Kumar Appa Rao

Present writ appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 14.07.2025, passed in W.P.No.19848 of 2023, by which learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department.

¶14

2. The writ petition came to be instituted assailing the proceedings in D.Dis.No.L1/18025(37)/7/2023, dated 29.06.2023, issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, by which permission came to be accorded to the Executive Officer, Sri Ramakrishna Public Trust

¶15

2

¶16

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶17

enabling him to lease out the land admeasuring Ac.8.60 cents in Survey No.54 of Gollapalli village, Nuzvid Mandal (“subject property”) for a period of 11 years through e-tender-cum-public auction and the consequential action of the Executive Officer in issuing public auction notice, dated 24.07.2023, to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶18

3. One Sri Anne Ramakrishnaiah stated to have established “Sri

¶19

Ramakrishna Public Trust” in the year 1962 with various objects which include promotion of Khadi and Village Industries, development of agriculture and cattle, women welfare, welfare of weaker sections, and supporting education, etc. To sustain the said objects, an extent of about 70 acres of land came to be donated to the said Institution, which included an extent of Ac.8.60 cents in Survey No.54 of Gollapalli Village, Nuzvid Mandal. The said institution came to be registered under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the 1987 Act”), and the same is being now administered by the Executive Officer. The subject land has been given out on lease for agricultural purposes from time to time. The writ petitioner stated to be the leaseholder for the period 2020-2023. That being so, now the Commissioner, Endowments Department, had issued proceedings in D.Dis.No.L1/18025(37)/7/2023, dated 29.06.2023, which permitted the Executive Officer to lease out the

¶20

subject land for a period of 11 years through e-tender-cum-auction

¶21

3

¶22

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶23

process. Consequently, the Executive Officer had issued auction notification, dated 21.07.2023, specifying the schedule of auction. The said notice stipulated that the auction participant has to make primary deposit of Rs.6,50,000/- for the purpose of participating in the auction.

¶24

4. Writ petitioner assailed these proceedings in the writ petition by contending that since the subject property being agricultural land, the same cannot be given in lease for a period of more than 3 years, much less 11 years, as proposed and further that granting of leases for 11 years is permissible only for non-agricultural use, therefore, the said auction was stated to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the very objects of the institution for which the land was donated. It was also contended that the subject land was put to auction for a period of 11 years at the behest of one Mrs.N.Meena Latha, who was alleged to be a fraudster.

¶25

5. The Executive Officer filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition, inter alia, stating that the subject institution has been registered and published under Section 6(b)(i) of the Act, 1987, and that it has been managed by the Executive Officer so appointed; that the subject land was leased out from time to time for a period of three years through public auction and the lease which was granted to the writ petitioner ended by 2022-23, the maktha paid for the said period was Rs.1,33,000/- per annum. As there was a proposal from one

¶26

4

¶27

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶28

M/s.Vantage Spinners Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director N.Meena Latha, requesting to lease out an extent of Ac.9.00 cents for the purpose of solar project on lease basis @ Rs.30,000/- per annum per acre with enhancement of 20% for every 3 years for a period of 25 years, the said proposal was routed to the Commissioner, who in turn, by proceedings, dated 15.07.2023, has accorded permission to lease out the land for a period of 11 years, in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 (for short, “Non-Agricultural Lands Rules”). Accordingly, the Executive Officer has issued auction notice strictly following the procedure contemplated under the Agricultural Lands Rules. Primary deposit was fixed at Rs.6,50,000/- for the purpose of participating in the auction.

¶29

6. After institution of the writ petition, this Court by order, dated 08.08.2023, allowed the respondents to proceed with auction, however, directed not to finalize the same. It is stated that though the auction notice received some response, as few of the bidders did not submit the primary deposit of Rs.6,50,000/- and that only one bidder furnished the same, the auction could not be concluded on 08.08.2023 due to insufficient response.

¶30

5

¶31

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶32

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, learned single Judge, having noted that the subject lands were agricultural in nature and being utilized for agricultural purposes until the year 2023, came to the conclusion that they cannot be auctioned for any other purpose other than agriculture as the same would defeat the object of creation of the Trust. The learned single Judge has also noted that though the public auction does not specify the purpose of the lease, considering the fact that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, “Agricultural Lands Rules”), envisaged granting of leases only for a period of three years, the public auction was clearly in contradiction to the same. Further, it has also been held that unless the subject land is classified as non-agricultural land or has been put to non-agricultural use, the respondents in the writ petition could not have invoked the NonAgricultural Lands Rules to proceed with grant of lease for a period of 11 years, therefore, allowed the writ petition.

¶33

8. Heard learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the appellants; and Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner.

¶34

9. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the appellants mainly contended that when there is no statutory prohibition

¶35

6

¶36

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶37

or bar as such under the provisions of the 1987 Act, it is for the institution to decide as to the purpose for which the subject property be best utilized for augmenting the revenues to the institution in order to meet the objects of such institution, therefore, it cannot be said that land which has been used for cultivation should always be utilized for the very same purpose and not any other purpose. He further contended that even otherwise, the only embargo that probably would have come in the way of using the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes would utmost be operation of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short, “the 2006 Act”), since, now the same has been repealed by the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) (Repeal) Act, 2025 (for short, “the Repeal Act”), even such requirement no longer exists. Therefore, once the institution decides the purpose for which land is required to be put to use, either for agriculture or other than agriculture, the institution is accordingly required to follow the respective Rules through which the leases were supposed to be granted, therefore, rightly, the appellants had resorted to the procedure contemplated under the Non-Agricultural Lands Rules, which meant for grant of leases to other than agriculture purposes. He further contended that the subject land was only fetching annual maktha of Rs.1,33,000/in total, therefore, considering the better revenues that can be

¶38

7

¶39

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶40

augmented by best utilisation of the subject land, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, had taken a decision to lease out the subject land for a period of 11 years which is meant for non-agriculture purpose which cannot be found fault with.

¶41

10. Per contra , learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner tried to support the order of the learned single Judge. He contended that as the subject land has been donated for a specific purpose in order to meet the objects of the institution, the appellants cannot utilize the land for any other purpose other than agriculture, therefore, they ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under the Agricultural Lands Rules.

¶42

11. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made above. The subject property admittedly belonged to the institution, and the same has been given on short-term lease for a period of three years from time to time, and the last lease ended in the year 2023. The writ petitioner appears to be lessee, who was paying annual maktha of Rs.1,33,000/- for the aforesaid extent of land. The trust deed, which has been executed by Anne Ramakrishnaiah, did set out various objects and in order to support the activities to be undertaken by the said Trust, an extent of about 70 acres and odd was donated to the said trust, which included the subject land as well. A close glance of the trust

¶43

8

¶44

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶45

deed goes to show that the purpose and purport of donating various properties was to ensure the trust discharges and meets the owed objects with the revenue to be augmented by putting the properties so donated to best of their use. Further, the donor has not restricted or placed any prohibition as such in harnessing the properties those were donated. If it was his intention that the lands donated were to be for all times to come be utilized only for agriculture purposes, definitely, it would have been specifically so spelt out, and we are afraid that placing any such restriction would not only defeat the purpose for which the trust was created, but also the same would severely impact the revenues to be generated by augmenting the assets.

¶46

12. Be that as it may, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, has now taken a decision to permit the subject land to be leased out for a period of 11 years, and accordingly, permitted the Executive Officer to proceed with auctioning of leasehold rights by following the procedure contemplated under the Non-Agricultural Lands Rules. For coming to such conclusion, the Commissioner appears to have done some exercise. We also have gone through the provisions of the Act 1987, the 2006 Act and the Repeal Act, and both the Agricultural Lands Rules and Non-Agricultural Lands Rules, in particular, those that relate to the management of properties of the institution. We do not find any provision as such, which places any prohibition or restriction on how a

¶47

9

¶48

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶49

particular property is required to be put to use, nor the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner has shown any such provision.

¶50

13. Once a property is sought to be leased out, if it is for the purpose

¶51

of agricultural activity, the same has to be governed by Agricultural Lands Rules, and if it is otherwise for any other non-agricultural activity, it would be governed by Non-Agricultural Lands Rules. Rightly, in the present case, the subject property has been proposed to be given on lease through public auction following the Non-Agricultural Lands Rules for a period of 11 years. We do not see any illegality or infirmity in adopting such course of action. It is also to be seen that in view of enactment of Repeal Act, 2025, question of even seeking prior permission for putting the agricultural land to non-agricultural use no longer requires, therefore, there cannot be any impediment to the institution in leasing out the subject property for any of the purposes. The institution is within its rights to lease out the subject property for any purposes and the paramount consideration should be to generate maximum amount of revenue to support the cause and objects of the institution.

¶52

14. Therefore, we find that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned single Judge are unsustainable and accordingly, we hereby allow the writ appeal setting aside the impugned order of the learned

¶53

10

¶54

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1310 of 2025

¶55

single Judge, and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No

¶56

order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any,

¶58

shall stand closed.