Dismissed

Tankala Mouleeswara Rao v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC8 Jun 2010WP/12707/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the auction of leasehold rights and sought non-dispossession of agricultural land held since 1942. Court held challenge to auction fails due to low rent and directed dispossession continue only via Section 83 procedure.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Respondents directed not to dispossess petitioners except in accordance with procedure under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987.

Tankala Mouleeswara Rao Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.12707 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned Standing counsel for the Devasthanam. At their request, the Writ Petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶5

The petitioners question the action of the respondents in seeking to auction the leasehold rights of agricultural land vide proceedings 21.04.2010, and in dispossessing the petitioners from their lands in Survey No.210 of an extent of Acs.11.32 cents situated at Niddam Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without following the procedure established by law.

¶6

The petitioners claim that their forefathers were cultivating the lands ever-since 1942 as cultivating tenants; without referring to the Suit filed before the District Munsif, Rajam, in O.S.No.150 of 1965, wherein the petitioners’ father was held to be a tenant of the second respondent, the Endowment Department was directed not to evict the petitioners’ father from the said land without following the due process of law; the appeal filed in A.S.No.173 of 1996 was dismissed; and the Second Appeal in S.A.No.814 of 1968 was also dismissed by an order of this Court dated 24.04.1970. The petitioner claims to be cultivating the lands belonging to the second respondent till date.

¶7

The second respondent issued auction notice for lease of the lands belonging to the respondent-temple for a period of three {3} years from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2013. The petitioner is stated to have sent a telegram on 03.05.2010 to the respondents requesting that no public auction be held. It is his case that, since he is in occupation of

¶8

the land and in the light of the orders of the Civil Court, he cannot be evicted except in accordance with law.

¶9

Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the respondentDevasthanam, would submit that a public auction was held, and the highest bidder had quoted Rs.10,100/- per acre per annum for one bit of land of an extent of Acs.5.66 cents and Rs.10,000/- per acre per annum for another extent of Acs.5.66 cents; and that the petitioners are continuing in occupation of the land on payment of annual rent of Rs.100/- per acre.

¶10

To a query from the Court, whether the petitioner was willing to match the said lease amount, Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, sought time to obtain instructions. Today, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are not in a position to match the highest bid amount received in the public auction.

¶11

In exercise of powers conferred under Section 82, read with Section 153 (1) of Act 30 of 87, the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural lands Rules, 2003, was made. Rule 7 (1) thereof requires all leases to be granted by public auction. Under the proviso, the competent authority may, on a request made in writing by the Executive Authority, permit him to call for sealed tenders to be received before the public at the place of auction if he is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the procedure is necessary and in the interest of the institution or Endowment.

¶12

In the case on hand, the petitioner is paying an annual rent of Rs.100/- per acre whereas in the auction now held, the highest bid received is 100 times the said paid amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- per acre. It is, therefore, evident that it is not in the interest of the institution to grant lease to the petitioners otherwise than by way of public auction. The

¶13

challenge to the auction must, therefore, fail.

¶14

With regards the petitioners’ possession over the lands in question, the petitioners are said to be in occupation of the lands eversince 1942 albeit without a lease being granted in their favour for the past several years. They fall within the definition of ‘encroacher’ under Section 83 of the Act. The procedure prescribed for eviction of encroachers is under Section 83 of the Act.

¶15

Ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners, from the land in question, except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987.

¶16

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶17

_______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)

¶18

8^th June 2010 RRB

Tankala Mouleeswara Rao v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tankala Mouleeswara Rao v. The Commissioner

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

D. Vrukodhar Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

M/s. Sri B.S. Narayan Service Station, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Bpcl)

Maruthi Karimika Samkshema Sangam, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad

Karri Venkatesh Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

T.Sankara Reddy Vs Gunturu Seetharamaiah Anna Sathram Trust

Mamillapalli Satyanarayana Vs Gunturu Seetharamaiah Anna Sathram Trust, Atchuta