R VENKATARAMANA Vs. DEPUTY COMMR ENDOWMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner admittedly purchased usufructuary lease holdrights of an extent of Ac. 140.33 cent's bearing S. Nos. 295/1, 298/C, 298/E and 299/A situated in Gorripudi Vemvaram village, Kakinada Talhik belonging to the second respondent-institution for a sum of Rs. 3,300/- in the ear 1972. He has taken possession in February, 1972. The lease was for six years. Therefore, the lease of six years period expired by February, 1978. Thereafter, proceedings werw initiatea in A.T.C. No. 123 of 1984 before the Special Officer (Principal District Munsif) Kakinada under Section 13 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 The contention raised therein by. the petitioner was that he was only a lessee of the usufructary right and it is not in respect of the lands. As a result, the Tenancy Act is inapplicable. That pcsition was accepted by the Special Officer and dismissed the petition. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 75 (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, XVII of 1966 (for short 'the Act)' for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is an encroacher and that therefore an order may be passed in favour of the respondent-institution. After giving notice to the petitioner and alter considering the case on nerits, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowents by his order dated November 4, 1985 held that the petitioner is an encroacher. Accordingly, he directed the petitioner to vacate the laud within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order and to hand over possession of the lands to the respondent-institution; lest he would be liable to be proceeded with under Section 76 (1) of the Act. Assailing the legality thereof, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The contention of Sri Krowidi Nurasitnham, the learned counselfor the petitioner, is that though the lease had expired in February, 1978. the petitioner continued to be a tenant holding over as the respondent No. 2 has accepted the rent every year. In the tenancy proceedings it was admitted that the petitioner continued to be a cultivating tenant anJ that he was claimed to have committed default in payment of rent in the year 1981. In those circumstances, there is an admission on the part of the second respondent that the petitioner continued to be a cultivating tenant; thereby there is an acceptance of the lease in favour of the petitioner. Once that position is accepted, the petitioner cannot be treated to be an cncroacher. The finding recorded by the authority is not valid in law.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition iswhether the petitioner, on expiry of the lease granted in his favour, could be treated to be an encroacher. Chapter XI of the Act deals with 'encroachments'. Section 75 (1) reads thus: