DEGA BAI REDDY Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail the conduct of an auction for grant of leasehold rights of lands in various extents i.e. Ac.4.40 cents in Sy.No.95/2, Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.4363, Ac.1.71 in Sy.No.294, Ac.8.23 in Sy.Nos.4363,4359, 4364/A, 4365, 4366, 4367, 4362, 4361 and 4363 of North Mopur village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, an agricultural, property belonging to the 3rd respondent -Sri Rebala Kodanda Rami Reddy Charities, North Mopur village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District.

(2.) The petitioners claim to have been in possession of these lands, to be cultivating it, to be raising paddy crop and paying annual Maktha regularly to the Charitable institution, since long; the leases are stated to have been orally granted in 1980. The petitioners do not plead, establish or demonstrate that they are the lawful cultivating tenants of the 3rd respondent institution's lands, on the basis of duly executed lease deeds.

(3.) Rule 7 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Rules') and the provisions of similar rules earlierto these; whether made under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or underthe A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short 'the New Act'), as well as the general principles of Administrative Law and authoritative precedents, obligate Endowment properties to be alienated including by way of lease only by a transparent public process in a manner which would ensure the fetching of a competitive return on Endowment properties and not by clandestine and sub-rosa private understanding between Endowment officers or managers of temples and private individuals. The unauthorized occupation of the Endowment lands by the petitioners without a lease deed executed in their favour by or on behalf of the Endowment after following the due processorlaw; substantive and procedural, would not elevate occupation of the petitioners to the status of cultivating tenants as understood by the provisions of the New Act. Cultivating tenant in Section 82 of the New Act must be understood to denote cultivating tenant undera lawful duly executed lease and not one that is the product of ultra vires conduct of the State actors in defiance of the legislative mandate -see in this connection - (Bhudan Singh v. Nabi Bux-(1969) 2 SCC 481 - paras 12 and 13). There is no exclusion in this principle by the mere fact that the petitioners are in such an unauthorized occupation since 1980 or times immemorial. The petitioners do not claim any prescriptive title or ownership to the lands in question.