Disposed

Kadali Subba Rao, v. The Assiatant Commissioner and E.O.

Telangana HC8 Oct 2010WP/8966/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice cancelling his tenancy in agricultural land. The court found that without a determination of his status as a landless poor person, proceedings were premature. The petition was disposed of without merits, leaving room for fresh legal process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the case, leaving it open for the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings.

Kadali Subba Rao, Vs The Assiatant Commissioner and E.O. — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 8966 OF 2003

¶3

Dated: 08.10.2010

¶4

Between: Kadali Subba Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner & E.O.,Sri Pandhiri Mahadevudu Kotilingala Choultry

¶5

.....RESPONDENT

¶6

The Court made the following :

¶7

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 8966 OF 2003

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

The petitioner herein claims to be the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.2.00 cents of land belonging to Sri Pandhiri Mahadevudu Kotilingala Choultry, Rajahmundry. It is stated that the land in question has been in possession of the family of the petitioner from time immemorial and they have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment as cultivating tenants.

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 14.04.2003 issued by the respondent herein under Rule 5 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules’) informing the petitioner that the lease in his favour stood cancelled and calling upon him to handover the vacant possession, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶12

It is primarily contended that since the petitioner is a landless poor person, the respondent ought to have issued the notice under sub-rule 2 of Rule 5 of the Rules giving an option to him either to purchase the lease land or to continue as a tenant paying 2/3^rd of the market rent for the similarly placed lands as lease amount.

¶13

This Court, while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 06.05.2003 granted interim suspension of the impugned notice.

¶14

No counter affidavit is filed and the subsequent events are not known.

¶15

The rules made under G.O.Ms.No.379 have coming into force on 11.03.2003 and as per Rule 3 of the Rules, immediately after coming

¶16

into force of the said Rules, if any cultivating tenant, who claims to be a landless poor person, shall make such claim before the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction and thereupon it has to be decided whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person as defined under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 after giving a reasonable opportunity to the cultivating tenant and to the executive authority of the concerned institution or endowment. If the cultivating tenant does not claim to be a landless poor person, the tenancy would be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from 28.05.1987

¶17

As no counter affidavit is filed, it is not known whether the petitioner has made any such claim before the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction and whether there is any determination as to his status as landless poor person.

¶18

Be that as it may, since the impugned notice was issued long back in the year 2003, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, in case necessity thereof arises. No costs.

¶19

Date: 08.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd

Kadali Subba Rao, v. The Assiatant Commissioner and E.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadali Subba Rao, v. The Assiatant Commissioner and E.O.

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

K.Somanarsaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by the District

C. Savithri Devi, Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Alla Gruhalakshmi Vs The Commissioner of Appeals

Ponugoti Sitaram Babu Vs The Sub Registrar

M.Lakshmi Devamma Vs The Tahsildar,Puttaparthi Mandal,Anantapur District

D. Kaleshavali Vs The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology