C.VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the order, dated 03.02.2009, passed in Appeal No.25 of 2008 by respondent No.2- Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, confirming the order, dated 02.07.2007, passed in M.A.No.1425 of 2017 (in Rc.No.A2/7487/2003) by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in their respective orders, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to appreciate the crucial fact that O.S.No.31 of 1978 was filed by his father for declaring him as a cultivating tenant, that he (petitioner) came to be impleaded therein on the demise of his father as his legal representative and the Court below declaring him as cultivating tenant of respondent No.4-Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Antharvedi Village, Sakinetipally Mandal, East Godavari District. His further case is that in O.S.No.187 of 2007 filed by him, the Court below, while decreeing the same, directed the respondents to issue maktha receipts in his favour, which fact would establish the factum of his being the tenant of respondent No.4; that O.S.No.92 of 2003 filed by him in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole, for declaration that he is entitled to purchase the land admeasuring Acs.2.10 cents in Survey Nos.91/2A, 91/2B and 93/3 of Tatipaka, Razole Mandal, @ 75% of the market value, was decreed and during pendency thereof, respondent No.4 filed O.A.No.117 of 2003 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Kakinada, seeking his eviction, but, later, it withdrew the same; that respondent No.3 issued notice on 29.08.2003 calling upon him to inform whether he is willing to enhance the rent or purchase the subject land, within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof and on the same day, the Special Officer, representing respondent No.4, issued another notice to the petitioner to furnish details with regard to the properties owned by him along with confirmation letter to respondent No.3 within one week from the date of receipt thereof and he replied to the same by categorically asserting that he is willing to purchase the property and that while the things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner on 19.09.2003 proposing to conduct an enquiry so as to determine whether he is a small farmer and if so, he is eligible for the benefits therefor. It is also the case of the petitioner that ignoring the specific arguments advanced particularly with respect to various proceedings ensued between him and respondent No.4, respondent No.2, placing reliance on the orders, dated 05.08.2003 and 21.08.2006, passed in W.A.No.1302 of 2003 and W.P.No.17281 of 2006 respectively, wherein this Court held that the benefits under Section 82 of the Act are available only to a person, who is a cultivating tenant, having obtained lease through public auction, as stipulated under the relevant statutory rules, governing the grant of lease of agricultural lands belonging to religious and endowment institutions and that an individual by merely depositing Makthas in favour of the institution cannot claim that he is a cultivating tenant, passed the impugned order confirming the order, dated 02.07.2007, passed by respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he is a small farmer in terms of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) A counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner is not a tenant of respondent No.4 in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Act, as such, he is not entitled to the benefits under Section 82 of the Act and that respondent No.2, placing reliance on the orders of this Court dated 05.08.2003 and 21.08.2006, passed in W.A.No.1302 of 2003 and W.P.No.17281 of 2006 respectively rightly passed the impugned order.