GUTHIKONDA RAGHAVA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being a landless poor persons in cultivation of the land belongs to the 5th respondent institution for over several decades. The land which was taken by the petitioner on lease for Rs.5400.00 per annum payable to an extent of Ac 4.20 cents and he was declared as 'small farmer' by the 4th respondent by conducting enquiry as contemplated under Rule 3 of un-amended Rules 2003. Later, the 4th respondent has declared the petitioner as landless poor person vide Rc.No.B4/4570/2003, dtd. 27/7/2003. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent rejected the petitioner's claim to declare the petitioner as 'small farmer' by order dtd. 13/4/2009. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent vide Appeal No.6/2009 and the 3rd respondent vide order dtd. 12/6/2009 has granted interim suspension by suspending the order passed by the 4th respondent dtd. 13/4/2009, and held that the petitioner is an existing lessee and not in arrears of lease amount and agreed for enhancement of existing lease amount by 10%. The said appeal is pending consideration. Pursuant to the same, the lease amount is being enhanced from time to time. As on date, the petitioner is paying Rs.49,900.00 p.a. to the total extent of land i.e., Ac 4.20 cents which is under lease. It is further stated that, when the petitioner ploughed and made the land ready for cultivation, without publication of notice, as per the amended rules, the auction was conducted by the respondents. Further, no tender-cum-Public auction was conducted three months before expiry of existing lease period. Further, the 5th respondent has also not issued public notice of ten days. Without any notice and without cancellation of lease, which is in favour of the petitioner, the auction was conducted. Further, the petitioner was never dispossessed by the respondents by following the procedure contemplated under law. On enquiry, it came to know that the person, who participated in the auction, did not pay the bid amount. As such the 5th respondent proceeded to conduct auction once again on 16/9/2016. So, immediately, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the 4th respondent on 20/6/2016 stating that he do not possess any agricultural land, other than the land which is under lease belongs to the 5th respondent institution. It is stated that the petitioner was also recognized as 'small farmer' by the 3rd respondent and there are no dues of lease amount and the petitioner did not possess any other land. In the event of his dispossession, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss, as it would affect his livelihood. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 15/9/2016 has directed the respondents not to confirm the bid in favour of the highest bidder in case if the respondents conduct auction, in view of the orders of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II, Tirupati, dtd. 12/6/2009.