Gurram Brahmaji and 5 others v. Government of A.P., Rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 2 others
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Jul 2010
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri V.T.M.Prasad learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. While pleading that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in question for the past several years and that they are landless poor persons, and as such they are entitled to the benefit under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), it is contended in the writ petition that the impugned action of the respondents in putting to auction the leasehold rights for a period of three years from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 is arbitrary and illegal. However, the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent under instructions submitted that the petitioners 1 to 5 were the successful bidders in the auction held for the years 2007 to 2010 and thus they were granted the lease in respect of the lands in their possession.
It is further submitted that as the lease in their favour expired, the respondents had rightly put the leasehold rights to public auction for the period from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013. So far as the petitioner No.6 is concerned, the learned standing counsel submitted that he was the successful bidder in the auction held for the period 2005 to 2008 and he was continued as a lessee for the subsequent three years also i.e. 2007 to 2010. So far as the plea that the petitioners are landless poor is concerned, admittedly there is no such determination by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments having territorial jurisdiction, and even according to the petitioners they made applications for such determination only on 09.07.2010 just before filing the present writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the lease in favour of the petitioners was not subsisting on the date of the commencement of the Act.
Operative part
There is also no determination that they are land less poor persons. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the statutory benefit under Section 82 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in putting the leasehold rights of the lands in question to public auction cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. So far as the claim of the petitioners that there is standing crop on the land in question is concerned, it is always open to them to make appropriate representation before the 3rd respondent in which event the same may be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 14.07.2010 KLP
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — s. 82(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 14 Jul 2010. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.