M. Shashavali v. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderavad

(Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 22-06-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 8447 of 2009, the original petitioner has filed this appeal, whereby his petition praying for quashing the proceedings dated 18-03- 2009 on the file of respondent No.1 had been rejected.

The appellant – petitioner claims to be a sub-tenant of husband of respondent No.4. An extent of Ac.1.77 cents of wetland situated in Survey Nos.1000-A, 1000-C and 325-E of Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, which belongs to an endowment was given on lease to the husband of respondent No.4. The husband of respondent No.4 had sub-leased the land in question to the appellant. After the death of the husband of respondent No.4, the appellant was in occupation of the land in question and was cultivating the land. His grievance is that the land in question has been given on lease to respondent No.3 by respondent No.2 by an order dated 18-03-2009. According to him, the land in question ought to have been given to him on lease as per the provisions of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’). After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned single Judge rejected the petition on the ground that the appellant was not in lawful occupation of the land in question and leasehold rights had been rightly given to respondent No.3 by respondent No.2 by holding an auction.

We have heard the learned advocates and have also perused the original record pertaining to the auction. Upon perusal of the record, we find that in fact nine persons had given deposits for participating in the auction and four persons had participated in the auction. The auction was held in the presence of the Inspector, Endowments Department, Uravakonda and the Assistant Commissioner and Manager, Sri Gavimatt Samsthanam, Uravakonda. We are satisfied that the auction had taken place in an appropriate manner and it appears that the amount of lease offered by respondent No.3 is also reasonable.

So far the appellant is concerned, in our opinion, he has no right to continue to be in occupation of the land in question simply because he claims to be a sub-tenant of the husband of respondent No.4. So as to claim right under Section 82 of the Act, the appellant has to do certain formalities and has to adduce evidence to the effect that he is a landless poor person and he is a tenant in respect of the land in question for not less than six years. The said facts have not been established by the appellant before respondent No.2 and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim any right under Section 82 of the Act.

Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly not accepted the claim of the appellant – petitioner. We do not see any illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th August, 2009