A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, the 2nd respondent herein, in Appeal No. 268 of 2007 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21of the Constitution of India.

2. Claiming to be a cultivating tenant in respect of the dry land admeasuring Ac. 4.14 cents situated in Sy. No. 565 of Dowleswaram Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to the 4th respondent-temple, the 1st petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the 3rd respondent herein, seeking to recognise him as a landless poor person under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short the Rules) and the 3rd respondent vide order in M.A. No. 1308 of 2007 in Rc. No. A4/7825/2003, dated 8.03.2007 rejected the request of the 1st petitioner for his recognition as landless poor person under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the Act). As against the said order, the 1st petitioner filed Appeal No. 268 of 2007 before the 2nd respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments under Rule 4 of the Rules. The Regional Joint Commissioner by way of an order dated 17.12.2008 dismissed the said appeal.

3. In the above background, impugning the said orders of rejection as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently asking for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for purchase of the subject land on payment of 75% of the market rate as fixed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. This Court on 19.06.2009 issued Rule Nisi and in W.P.M.P. No. 15381 of 2009 granted status quo until further orders. Pending the writ petition, the sole petitioner passed away and his wife came on record as petitioner No. 2 as the legal representative of deceased sole petitioner, vide order dated 25.09.2014 in W.P.M.P. No. 35408 of 2014. Seeking eviction of the interim order, W.V.M.P. No. 2036 of 2009 supported by counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent-temple, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

5. Heard Sri B.V. Subbaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-temple, apart from perusing the material available on record.

6. Submissions/contentions of Sri B.V. Subbaiah, learned Senior Counsel:

a) The orders under challenge are erroneous, contrary to law and highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14and 21 of the Constitution of India.

b) The impugned orders are opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

c) The respondent-authorities failed to see that the 1st petitioner falls under the definition of landless poor person as defined under Explanation to Section 82 of the Act.

d) The authorities grossly erred in construing the lease in the instant case as cancelled and the said conclusion is not tenable in view of the language of Section 82 of the Act.

e) The respondents totally erred in relying on the household card for the purpose of assessing the income of the 1st petitioner as Rs. 18,000/- and instead they ought to have conducted independent enquiry for deciding the status of the 1st petitioner.

f) The respondents failed to take into account the proceedings Rc. No. M1/29507/88, dated 00-01-1993 issued by the Commissioner, of Endowments.

g) The respondents did not take into account the order of this Cou