The petitioners filed this batch of writ petitions, feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 30.4.2008, passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, as the 2nd respondent in the writ petitions; setting aside the individual orders dated 19.9.2003, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, the 3rd respondent.

2. One Donthireddy Ramakrishna Reddy, the grandfather of the petitioners herein, was granted lease in respect of Ac.3.09 cents of land, in Sy.No.110 of Tadepally Village, Guntur District, owned by Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, the 4th respondent herein; under lease deed dated 19.7.1939. The petitioners state that during the lifetime of Ramakrishna Reddy, his three sons, viz., Akkireddy, Subba Reddy and Venkata Reddy, were separately cultivating the extents of Ac.1.13 cents Ac.1.00 cents, and Ac.1.19 cents respectively, and that separate leases were granted by the Managing Trustee of the 4th respondent Temple. The petitioner in WP Nos.11166, 11182, 11183 and 11185 of 2008 are said to be the sons of Subba Reddy, and petitioners in WP Nos.11187 and 11.188 of 2008 are sons of Akkireddy.

3. They plead that the land, that was being cultivated by their respective fathers, was divided among them selves, and they are cultivating the land for the last several years.

4. Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the 1987 Act'), brought about statutory termination of all the tenancies, in respect of agricultural lands, owned by Hindu Religious Institutions 11 and Endowments. The vires of this provision were in challenge and it was only in the recent past, that the Supreme Court upheld its legality. Even while bringing about automatic termination of lease, the section provided for certain benefits in favour of lessees, who are declared as landless poor.

5. Petitioners filed individual applications before the 3rd respondent with a prayer to declare them as landless poor. The 3rd respondent passed individual orders dated 19.9.2003, accepting the claims of the petitioners, and declaring them as landless poor.

6. Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple was brought under the administrative control of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Temple, Vijayawada, in the year 2001. The Temple, under the new administrative set up, which now stands described as 4th respondent, preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent, accompanied by applications, for condonation of delay. The 2nd respondent passed a common order dated 23.4.2008, condoning the delay. Thereafter, he has taken up Appeals, and vide common order dated 30.4.2008, he allowed the appeals, and set aside the orders dated 19.9.2003, passed by the 3rd respondent.

7. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent did not follow the correct procedure, be it, while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, or the appeals. They state that the 2nd respondent did not give them proper opportunity to present their case. They also plead that the order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained on merits, and that none of the reasons, mentioned by him, can be sustained in law.

8. The 4th respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit, opposing the plea of the petitioners. According to it, the petitioners were never granted any leases, and they are not entitled for the benefit of Section 82 of the Act. It is pleaded that the land is no longer put to agricultural use, and has assumed residential and cominercial utility. They state that the land is needed for the purpose of construction of countries and offices.

9. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were not given adequate opportunity by the 2nd respondent to contest the applications filed by the 4th respondent for condonation of delay. He submits that though the petitioners approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the common orders dated 23.4.2008, condoning the del