( 1 ) THE Petitioners filed ATC No. 15 of 1991, before the Tenancy Tribunal-cum-District munsif, Avanigadda (for short "the Tribunal"), under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short "the Tenancy Act"), for a declaration that they are the cultivating tenants, in respect of ac. 21 -60 cents of land, belonging to the first respondent Devasthanam. They pleaded that they have been inducted into the land, as tenants, by the then Chairman of the devasthanam, and subsequently, the second respondent granted tenancy rights, during his tenure. It was their case that they have been paying the rent of 325 bags, per year, to the Chairman and he, in turn, used to remit the rent amount to the Executive Officer of devasthanam. They complained that even while the tenancy was subsisting, the first respondent sought to auction the leasehold rights, in respect of the lands.

( 2 ) THE second respondent is the Chairman of the Trust Board at the relevant point of time and the third respondent is the member of the founder family. Respondents 2 and 3 remained ex parte in the proceedings. The devasthanam pleaded that there never existed any relationship of tenant and landlord, between the petitioners and itself.

( 3 ) THROUGH its order, dated 31-10-1996, the Tribunal dismissed the ATC, holding that the petitioners were never the tenants of the devasthanam. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed C. M. A. No. 94 of 1996, before the Court of District Judge, Krishna at machilipatnam. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on 29-4-2005. Hence this revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India.

( 4 ) SRI T. S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there is voluminous evidence on record, including the admissions by the witnesses examined by the respondents, to prove that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the lands in question. He contends that though there did not exist any written lease in favour of the petitioners, the record discloses that the successive chairman of the Trust Board, acting as the agent of the Devasthanam, has leased the lands to the petitioners.

( 5 ) AS regards the view taken by the lower appellate court, in relation to non-applicability of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, in view of the recent amendments, he submits that such amendments are only prospective in operation, and that the proceedings initiated for declaration of the rights of the parties, visa-vis, the lands held by Hindu Religious institutions (hereinafter referred to as "the endowment lands) do not either abate, or become incompatible. He has placed reliance upon certain precedents, in support of his contention.

( 6 ) SRI M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the Devasthanam, submits that the petitioners were never granted any lease in respect of the lands. He submits that the second respondent and his predecessor have inducted the petitioners into possession of the lands, with a malafide intention, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the endowments Act ). According to the learned counsel, whatever may have been the merits, or maintainability of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners, with the amendments to the Tenancy Act and Endowments Act, through Acts 27 and 28 of 2002, the claim of the petitioners cannot be either maintained, or sustained, in any manner.

( 7 ) FROM the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration, in this revision: (a) Whether the present proceedings are barred, in view of the amendments carried to the Tenancy act and the Endowments Act? (b) Whether the petitioners have established their rights of tenancy, over the lands in question?

( 8 ) THE Endowments Act provides for the administration of Hindu Religious Institutions and the management of the properties held by them, Section 82 thereof brings about a statutory termi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document