Dismissed

Kumpatla Nageswara rao v. Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments

Telangana HC2 Feb 2006WP/24153/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition claiming entitlement to benefits as landless poor under the A.P. Endowments Act. The court found no merit in the claim as the petitioners were not valid tenants of the temple and the temple had taken possession.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of landless poor status claimed by petitioners under Section 82(2) rejected and writ petition dismissed.

Kumpatla Nageswara rao Vs Regional Joint… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

W.P.No. 24153 of 2005

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The petitioners claims to be cultivating tenants in respect of Ac.0-70 cents of land situated in R.S.No.16 of Mandapalli Village, belonging to the 3^rd respondent temple. Claiming that they are landless poor, the petitioners filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, 2^nd respondent, seeking a declaration that they are landless poor and thus entitled to the benefit of subsection (2) of Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’). The said application was rejected by the 2^nd respondent by order dated 7-72005 on the ground that the petitioner was not a tenant of the 3^rd respondent-temple. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, 1^st respondent, was also dismissed by order dated 20-9-2005. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the said orders of respondents 1 and 2 are arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

On behalf of the 3^rd respondent a detailed counter affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioners are in no way concerned with the subject land and that one Smt. Ammannamma was the tenant, who relinquished her right over the land in the year 1995. It is stated that both the authorities having considered all the aspects rejected the claim of the petitioners and possession was also taken over by the 3^rd respondent-temple and therefore the petitioners cannot be granted any relief.

¶6

The 1^st respondent on the same lines has filed a separate counter affidavit.

¶7

Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having perused the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The specific averment in the

¶8

counter affidavit that the possession was taken over by the 3^rd respondent temple on 20-10-2005 remained unrebutted. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners across the bar asserted that the petitioners are continuing in possession as on today, in the absence of any supporting material I am not inclined to accept the same. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioners are not the tenants in respect of the land in question, the claim of the petitioners that they are landless poor and therefore entitled to the benefit under Section 82 (2) of the Act is untenable and misconceived.

¶9

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶10

02^nd February 2006

¶11

BJ/

Kumpatla Nageswara rao v. Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumpatla Nageswara rao v. Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Hard Granite Industries, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Ramachandra Reddy, Vs Government of Andrha Pradesh

Devarapalli Subba Rao Vs The Collector/District Election Authority

M/s. Sri Rama and Company, I.O.C. Vs The District Collector

M.Janardhan, Vs The Commissioner of Civil Supplies

R. Venkateswara Rao, Vs Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments