STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 3694-3748 of 1996. In a batch of writ petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the constitutional validity of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] was challenged. The learned single Judge who heard these matters held that sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act is arbitrary and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution to the extent of lessees who are marginal or small farmers, are not excluded from its effect while sub-section (2) was declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety. The matter was carried in appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench concluded that Section 82(1) of the Act is violative of equal protection clause of the Constitution inasmuch as the provisions of Section 82 singles out the tenants of the lands held by religious institutions or endowments resulting in putting an end to their tenancy rights; that the said classification was not only unreasonable but also it had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved (i) as to payment of rent or augmentation of the revenue of the religious institutions inasmuch as the rents stood frozen by reason of the Tenancy Acts in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh; (ii) that sale of lands is not a feasible proposition; (iii) that there is no exclusion of application of the tenancy Acts and the lands held by religious institutions or endowments in treating the tenants in question differently suffers from the vice of discrimination by putting an end to their leases. For the aforesaid reasons, sub-section (1) of Section 82 was declared void as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. While the question as to the enforceability of Section 82(2) of the Act is concerned, the Division Bench observed that sub-section (2) puts an end to tenancy rights of the landless poor persons too though in name sub-section (2) purports to save them from the cancellation. The learned Judges of the Division Bench proceeded to illustrate that if the land is held by two persons A and B who do not own any land of their own and A is a tenant of a land of an extent of Ac. 2-50 cents. wet., B is also a tenant of a land of an extent of Ac. 2.60 cents. wet. While A is a landless poor person and is saved from cancellation, B would not be such a landless person. To avoid discrimination between these persons, the Legislature ought to have provided that in the case of B his lease would not stand terminated to the extent of Ac. 2-50 cents wet and that he would be entitled to purchase to the extent of Ac. 2-50 cents in accordance with the sub-section (2) and not providing for such a situation amounts to discrimination between two similarly placed persons. The learned Judges thereafter proceeded to hold what we have adverted to earlier that the object of augmentation of revenue of the institutions and endowments is not realistic. However, the learned Judges did not go into the question as to the meaning of 'marginal or small farmers' and did not find it necessary to examine the contention of the State that the learned single Judge had, in fact, legislated to the extent of introducing the concept of 'marginal or small farmers' into Section 82 inasmuch they have held the entire sub-section (1) to be void. The Division Bench also noticed that though there is no appeal by writ petitioners inasmuch as the constitutionality of the enactment was involved and when the learned single Judge had struck down certain provisions, their reasons were sufficient to sustain the same. The Division Bench also did not consider it necessary to express any opinion as to whether it is competent for the Legislature to put an end to the tenancy rights and whether such cancellation is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or not. On that basis, after making a declaration of law in the manner stated above, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the State. Hence these appeals by special leave.

(2.) The Division Bench of the High Court found that the classification is unreasonable inasmuch as all tenants except those who are defined to be landless poor tenants are covered by Section 82 and such classification has been made which has no nexus to the object to be achieved, namely, augmentation of income to the institutions in question and better management of the properties. One of the reasons given by the Division Bench of the High Court to reach this conclusion is that the tenancy Acts, namely, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as' the Andhra Act'] and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Telangana Act'] are still in force. These enactments have not been excluded in the application to lands held by tenants of the agricultural lands of the institutions in question. Therefore, the view of the High Court is that the rents are frozen and eviction of the tenants are not possible and unless the operation of the Tenancy Acts are excluded insofar as the lands held by the institutions in question are concerned, the objectives cannot be fulfilled. It would only result in displacing one tenant by another tenant and would not achieve the objectives of the Act. thus there is no nexus in making the classification.

(3.) Smt. K. Amreshwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, strongly contended that this approach of the High Court is plainly unsustainable in view of the fact that the law on the matter is very clear that charitable or religious institution or endowment fall into a separate category and form a class by themselves. She submitted that such tenants coming under them also form separate class and they can be treated differently from others; secondly, she submitted that in striking down the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, the High Court has unnecessarily relied upon far too much on the tenancy laws in force in the State to fetter the legislature in cancelling the existing agricultural leases and lands belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment. The High Court, she complained, has speculated on the outcome of the impugned legislation and proceeded to hold that there is no reasonable connection with the object of the enactment in the absence of any material other than the laws in force in the State which would not indicate as to the type of tenants who are holders of leases under consideration, the rent payable by them, what rent the lands would fetch after the lands are resumed by the charitable or religious institution or endowment, possibility of sale or self cultivation. The judgment of the High Court is based on conjectures and surmises unsustainable in law and they are not strong reasons to invalidate a law.