Petchetti Kanthamma v. Godavari District
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
On the above set of facts, the writ petition is disposed of as
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
1 The Assistant Commissioner for Endowments, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Manager, Srikrishnarayudu Swamy Temple, K. Pedapudi Village, Ambajipet Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following :
O R D E R:
At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in evicting the petitioner from the lands comprised in R.S.Nos.97/1, 135/1, 135/4 of K.Pedapudi Village, Ambajipet Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a tenant of an extent of Acs.3.49 cents in the above mentioned survey numbers belonging to respondent No.2- institution. Her application for declaring her as landless poor person was rejected by respondent No.1 by his order dated 28-03-2005. The petitioner averred that against the said order, she made a representation before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada and that when the same was pending, respondent No.2 issued notification dated 03-05- 2005 proposing to auction the leasehold rights of the said property along with other properties for a period of three years from 14-05-2005 to 13-05-2008.
Heard Sri V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No.1. Having regard to the pleading of the petitioner that a notice was issued to auction the leasehold rights of the property in question for a period of three years, which expired on 13-05-2008, the grievance of the petitioner against the proposed auction ceases to exist. As regards the claim of the petitioner that she is a small farmer and hence entitled to exercise her option under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the petitioner herself admitted that her application filed under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease on Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules’) was rejected by respondent No.1. If she was aggrieved by the said order, it would have been open for her to file a statutory appeal under Rule 4 of the Rules, but she has not pleaded that she availed that remedy and instead she stated in her affidavit that she made a representation before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada, who is not a party to this writ petition.
Operative part
On the above set of facts, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, if not already done, to question the order of respondent No.1 with regard to her status as landless poor person. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, interim order dated 10-05-2005 is vacated and WPMP No.14379 of 2005 is dismissed. Dated 8th July, 2008 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: On the above set of facts, the writ petition is disposed of as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — s. 82(2).
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.