As this batch of 27 writ petitions involves a common and identical question, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions were declared as landless poor cultivating tenants in respect of the respective lands under their cultivation belonging to the respective temples by different orders of the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Endowments in the years 2003 and 2004. The Executive Officers of the respective temples filed appeals against the said orders along with applications for condonation of delay in 2010 under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules, 2003 (for short “the Rules”) under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, A.P. Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act”) issued in G.O.Ms. No.379 Revenue (Endowments.I) Department, dated 11-03-2003.

3. The temples contended the lands under their absolute ownership having commercial value to be within the Urban Area of Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalagiri Urban Region under G.O.Ms. No.144 LA & UD Department, dated 03-03-1988 and the lands were claimed to have been declared as urban lands within the master plan of the said urban authority under G.O.Ms. No.695 Municipal Administration, dated 09-11-1977. The lands were also claimed to have been set apart for residential, industrial and conservation purposes, etc., changing their character from agricultural to urban land, fit for construction by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.679, dated 29-12-2006. The temples also contended that there were no registered lease deeds executed between the temples and the writ petitioners, which is in violation of Section 82 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987, due to which the writ petitioners could not have been considered to be cultivating tenants, entitled to be declared as landless poor persons. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner were, hence, contended to be vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the orders, apart from the lands in question being required for the personal use of the temples. The temples contended that there was no delay in preferring the appeals after the inclusion of the lands in question in the urban development zone and to avoid any legal objections, the temples have filed petitions to condone the delay in preferring the appeals.

4. The tenants in their counters denied any necessity to have registered lease deeds when they were paying maktha regularly to the temples in respect of the lands under their personal cultivation even after the impugned orders. They also contended that the petitions for condonation of delay did not state any sufficient cause and did not explain day to day delay.

5. In the impugned orders allowing the delay condonation petitions, which are verbatim identical in 22 writ petitions, the decision in Donthireddy Sambi Reddy v. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad 2008(6) ALD 121 was referred to as applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under Section 82 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987. It was also opined that the right of a lessee, vis-a-vis the lands held by religious institutions are to be determined and worked out only so long as the land is put to agricultural use. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 were extracted apart from referring to (1998) 7 SCC 123 and N. Hemamalini v. N.A. Raghu 2008(2) ALD 171. The observations in Donthireddy Sambi Reddy v. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad (1 supra) that if the period of tenancy falls short of six years or if there is no valid lease, the claim cannot be accepted even if the person fits into the parameters of the landless poor, were also referred to. The temples argued that due to subsequent developments, the land in question changed its character and the right vested in the writ petitioners by virtue of declaration of their status a