The protection granted to landless poor tenants of religious institutions under Section 82(2) and its proviso of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, is a one-time affair. Legal heirs of landless poor persons do not inherit the status and benefits of such persons under the Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 4. These four petitioners are claiming that they are landless poor persons. The 3rd respondent temple is now seeking to auction the leasehold rights of the lands held by these petitioners as lessees of the 3rd respondent-temple.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that since they are landless poor persons, the 3rd respondent cannot auction the leasehold rights of the lands held by them and that they should be continued as lessees in accordance with the proviso to Section 82(2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”).

3. Heard Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent.

4. A perusal of the material placed before this Court would show that the 2nd petitioner has been recognized as a landless poor person by proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Rajahmundry on 31.03.2005. As such, he would be entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 82 of the Act and an extent of Ac.1.96 cents of wet land in R.S.No.410/5 of Manepalli Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District held by him, as lessee of the 3rd respondent, cannot be put to auction.

5. As far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, the said petitioner has not been recognized as a landless poor person in accordance with the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Agricultural Land Rules’). The petitioners 1 and 4 claim to be the descendents of persons who have been recognized as landless poor persons, in accordance with the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003.

6. Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 3rd petitioner meets all the requirements of a landless poor person and the only defect in his status is that necessary certification has not been obtained at the appropriate time. He further submits that petitioners 1 and 4 would also be entitled to the benefit of the status of a landless poor person, as they are the legal heirs of persons, who have already been recognized as landless poor persons. He further submits that Rule 9 (f) and Proviso to Rule 3(3) of the Agricultural Lands Rules, stipulate that once a person is recognized as a landless poor person, his status cannot be altered except by way of a review by the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. In the present case, since no such review has been conducted, the status of the ancestors of petitioners 1 and 4 remains that of landless poor persons and petitioners 1 and 4 are entitled for all the benefits available to their ancestors.

7. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent would submit that Rule 9(f) has been amended by way of G.O.Ms.No.425 dated 09.11.2015 whereby it was stipulated that where leases are held by landless poor persons, the lease granted to such landless poor persons can be held by legal heirs for the balance period whenever such landless poor persons pass away during the currency of any lease.

8. In the circumstances, he submits that the petitioners can, at best, be entitled for the balance period of the lease given in favour of the deceased landless poor person. He also relies upon Rule 8 of the Agricultural lands Rules, 2003 which states that no lease shall be granted for a period beyond three years and contends that the scheme of the Act and Rules is to grant lease of Agricultural Lands to landless poor persons recognized under Rule 3 for three years, which is to be renewed every three years. In such circumstances, petitioners 1 and 4 would at best have been entitled to continue the lease for the balance period after the demise of the landless poor person, who was holding the lease.

9. They would not be entitled for any continuation of subsequent leases.

C