IMPORTANT POINT
Section 82 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Acts, 1987 is constitutionally valid.

Headnote:(i) Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987-Section 82-Writ petitions challenging its constitutional validity-Single Judge holding Section 82(1) ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 in part and Section 82(2) ultra vires in toto-D.B. dismissing writ appeals-Appeals to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (No)-Appeals allowed subject to certain observations-(A.P. Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1950-Their effect on Section 82).
       Held : How far a tenancy Act is applicable to a religious institution and to what extent it should be limited is a matter for the legislature to decide. But such a policy should not be irrational. We do not think on that basis, we can interfere with the validity of the Act. It is plain that religious institutions fall into a separate class and lands held by them have a special character in respect of which tenancies had been created and these tenancies are sought to be put to an end to for resumption of lands for better management thereof. It is clear that the tenants under the religious institutions form a special class by themselves and such classification is made, so far as tenants are concerned, to achieve the object of protecting the interests of the religious institutions. Therefore, we do not think, any of the principles which result in hostile discrimination would be applicable to the present case. So far as the validity of Section 82(1) in classifying the landless poor persons is concerned, the High Court felt that the provisions themselves are inconsistent and that the illustration given by them, to which reference has already been made earlier, will show how discrimination will result. It is settled law that it is open to the legislature to state as to who should be exempt from the application of the law and, in the present case, there is definition of landless poor person whose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed two and half acres of wet land or five acres of dry land having been identified as landless poor person and he is enabled to purchase the land at 75 of the prevailing market value by paying in four equal instalments as may be provided under the Rules. Therefore, that aspect of saving the small land holders cannot be objected to nor can the meaning of landless poor person be enlarged, as has been sought to be done by the learned Single Judge. If, however, the said landless poor persons are not willing to purchase the land or fail to purchase such land, the lease would lapse. This latter provision cannot be held to be inconsistent with the earlier provisions as has been held by the High Court because that is a consequence flowing from the fact that such landless poor person is either not anxious to purchase the land or fails to do so. The validity of an enactment cannot be judged by fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar circumstances. Therefore, that reasoning of the Division Bench is also faulty. None of the learned counsel appearing in the case supported the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we do not propose to examine the same. We may sum up the upshot of our discussion:
        1. That charitable or religious institution or endowment fall into a separate category and form a class by themselves. If that is so, tenants coming under them also form separate class. Therefore, they can be treated differently from others;
        2. In operation of the Act it is possible that it may result in hardship to some of the tenants but that by itself will not be a consideration to condemn the Act;
        3. The manner in which the charitable or religious institution or endowment would deal with the properties that are resumed after the provisions of Section 82 of the Act come into force by cancelling the existing leases is in the region of speculation.
        4. Fresh tenancy can be entered into and there is no material before the court as to what was the rent paid by tenants at the time when the Act came into force in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act or as provided under the Andhra Act or under the Telangana Act. In the absence of a such material, it would be hazardous for the court to reach any conclusion one way or the other to state that the tenants would be frozen and, therefore, there is no likelihood of charitable or religious institution or endowment getting higher rents. If there is no material one way or other, the presumption that the Act is good prevail.
        5. It is a matter of policy with the legislature as to whether all provisions of the tenancy Acts should be exempt in its application to the charitable or religious institution or endowment in their entirety.
        6. The identification of landless poor persons and protection given to them is justified as enunciated earlier.
        7. It will be very difficult to predict at this stage that the result of Section 82 of the Act would be so hazardous as not to achieve the object for which it was enacted. It would not only result in displacing the old tenants by new tenants, it may also achieve other social objectives in another manner. If appropriate provisions are made under the Rules and if the leases are given to small holders of land, another social objective could be achieved.
        8. In what manner charitable or religious institution or endowment would deal with matters of this nature is a mere guess work at this stage. On some hypothetical approach the High Court could not have declared a law to be invalid.
       In the light of the discussion made above, we hold that the tenants of the institutions in question fall into a separate class which is identifiable. If that is so, what is to be next considered is whether the cancellation of the lease in their favour would achieve the objectives of the Act. We have demonstrated that there is no material before the court to show that such cancellation would not carry out the purposes of the Act, whether the legislature should have gone ahead to exclude the applicability of the Tenancy Acts in their application to the charitable or religious institution or endowment is another matter. Thus, the order under appeal shall stand set aside and the writ petitions filed by the parties shall stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that the undertaking given to the Court that while the writ proceedings were pending no steps would be taken for evicting the tenants holding the lands at present until appropriate Rules are framed shall be binding on the appellants and will hold good even now. Subject to these observations, the appeals stand allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 10 to 17)
       (ii) Andhra Pradesh Charitables and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987-Sections 80 and 82-A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 -Section 38E-Conferment of ownership under-Whether have any relevance to present case? (No)-Arguments relating to livelihood and Articles 31A and 19-Whether relevant? (No)-Writ dismissed.
       Held : Conferment of ownership under Section 38E of the Telangana Act has no relevance to the present case at all inasmuch as if the proper procedure has been adopted and the proceedings have reached the logical end, the tenant would become the owner of the land. Therefore, Section 82 would not be attracted to such a situation but if the proceedings have not been terminated and a tenancy continues to be in force, Section 82 of the Act would be attracted to such a case. This contention based on Section 38-E of the Telangana Act is untenable. The arguments relating to livelihood also have no legs to stand. The object of the Act is to resume lands in the hands of existing tenants for better management. After resumption some tenants may be dependent on the land leased to them by the charitable or religious institution or endowment but it cannot be said that was the only land held by them and that was the only avocation carried on by them, the objectives of the cancellation of the land is not to deprive anyone of his livelihood but, on the other hand, it is the better management of the properties belonging to the charitable or religious institution or endowment. The incident that the same may result in hardship to some of the tenants will not be a ground to say that it deprives them of their livelihood. The next argument of the learned counsel based on Article 31A of the Constitution, in our view, is entirely unfounded. Article 31A provides for granting certain enactments immunity from attack under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. That is not relevant in the present context at all inasmuch as no such exercise has been undertaken by the State. Therefore, we find no merit in any one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petitions, therefore, stand dismissed. No costs. (Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Civil Appeal Nos. 3694-3748 of 1996 :

In a batch of writ petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the constitutional validity of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable &. Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] was challenged. The learned Single Judge who heard these matters held that sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act is arbitrary and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution to the extent of lessees who are marginal or small farmers, are not excluded from its effect while sub-section (2) was declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety. The matter was carried in appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench concluded that Section 82(1) of the Act is violative of equal protection clause of the Constitution inasmuch as the provisions of Section 82 singles out the tenants of the lands held by religious institutions or endowments resulting in putting an end to their tenancy rights; that the said classification was not only unreasonable but also it had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved (i) as to payment of rent or augmentation of the revenue of the religious institutions inasmuch as the rents stood frozen by reason of the Tenancy Acts in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh; (ii) that sale of lands is not a feasible proposition; (iii) that there is no exclusion of application of the tenancy Acts and the lands held by religious institutions or endowments in treating the tenants in question differently suffers from the vice of discrimination by putting an end to their leases. For the aforesaid reasons, sub-section (1) of Section 82 was declared void as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. While the question as to the enforceability of Section 82(2) of the Act is concerned, the Division Bench observed that sub-section (2) puts an end to tenancy rights of the landless poor persons too though in name sub-section (2) purports to save them from the cancellation. The learned Judges of the Division Bench proceeded to illustrate that if the land is held by two persons A and B who do not own any land of their own and A is a tenant of a land of an extent of Ac. 2-50 cents, wet., B is also a tenant of a land of an extent of Ac.2.60 cents, wet. While A is a landless poor person and is saved from cancellation, B would not be such a landless person. To avoid discrimination between these persons, the legislature ought to have provided that in the case of B his lease would not stand terminated to the extent of Ac.2-50 cents wet and that he would be entitled to purchase to the extent of Ac.2-50 cents in accordance with sub-section (2) and not providing for such a situation amounts to discrimination between two similarly placed persons. The learned Judges thereafter proceeded to hold what we have adverted to earlier that the object of augmentation of revenue of the institutions and endowments is not realistic. However, the learned Judges did not go into the question as to the meaning of marginal or small farmers and did not find it necessary to examine the contention of the State that the learned Single Judge had, in fact, legislated to the extent of introducing the concept of marginal or small farmers into Section 82 inasmuch they have held the entire sub-section (1) to be void. The Division Bench also noticed that though there is no appeal by writ petitioners inasmuch as the constitutionality of the enactment was involved and when the learned Single Judge had struck down certain provisions, their reasons were sufficient to sustain the same. The Division Bench also did not consider it necessary to express any opinion as to whether it is competent for the legislature to put an end to the tenancy rights and whether such cancellation is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or not. On that basis, after making a declaration of law in the manner slated above, the Division Bench, dismissed the appeals f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1185

IMPORTANT POINTSection 82 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Acts, 1987 is constitutionally valid.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 82 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Acts, 1987 is constitutionally valid.