D. Srinivas Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28508 of 2010 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 3 and 4 in issuing the auction notice, dated 06.11.2010, auctioning the leasehold rights in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.7.41 cents, Ac.1.71 cents and Ac.5.50 cents, covered by Sy.Nos.341, 357/2 and 19 respectively, situated at Kanchikacharla village and Mandal of Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that his father had been cultivating the aforesaid lands belonging respondents 3 and 4 institutions, as a tenant. It is stated that after the death of his father in the month of December 2008, he succeeded to the tenancy rights and is being continued in possession and is paying maktha/rent to respondents 3 and 4. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though his tenancy rights still exist, respondents have issued auction notice on

06.11.2010, proposing to auction the leasehold rights with regard to the very same lands, as such, the same is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that there are existing subabul trees on the aforesaid lands, as such, petitioner cannot be deprived of the growth of trees. When the matter came up for admission on

16.11.2010, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. On instructions, it is submitted that there is no approved lease in favour of the petitioner. Further, it is stated that in view of the provision under Section 82 (1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, all leases have come to an end in view of cancellation of existing leases. It is further submitted that in the absence of any approved lease by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot claim for continuation of possession in the lands belonging to respondents 3 and 4. In this writ petition, is not in dispute respondents 3 and 4 institutions are owners of the lands in question. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant of the said lands, no material is placed on record to show that there is any approved lease or tenancy in his favour, so as to continue him in possession of the said lands. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in issuing the impugned auction notice, for auctioning the leasehold rights of the lands in question. Further, by virtue of the provision under Section 82(1) of the Act, all earlier leases are cancelled, except in the cases of landless poor. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any approved lease in his favour, the petitioner cannot seek for possession of lands in question on the ground that he is the tenant of said lands, having succeeded to the tenancy rights from his father. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned auction notice. However, as it is stated that there is existing subabul growth raised by the petitioner in the lands in question, the petitioner is permitted to remove such growth within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th November 2010