ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Lagadapati Narayanaswamy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. No. 12150 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021
LANDLESS POOR PERSON - STATUS - THE ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987 (ACT) - SECTION 82(2) - THE ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ENDOWMENTS LEASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS RULES, 2003 (RULES) - Explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act stipulates that the landless poor person would lose that status if his monthly income other than from the lands under his cultivation exceeds Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum. In the present case, the overall income which was shown as Rs.60,000/- does not set out how much of the Rs.60,000/- total income is income obtained from sources other than from the lands under cultivation. In the absence of that exercise, the total income of the petitioner cannot be taken into account, to disqualify him, as a landless poor person.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lessee of a temple land, was declared as a landless poor person under the Act and the Rules. Later, his status was cancelled by the 2nd respondent on the ground that his income exceeded the limit prescribed under Section 82 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order, contending that the income certificate did not specify the income from sources other than the lands under cultivation and that he was not given an opportunity to explain his case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the income certificate did not specify the income from sources other than the lands under cultivation and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain his case. Therefore, the cancellation order was set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the total income of the petitioner, including income from sources other than the lands under cultivation, can be taken into account to disqualify him as a landless poor person? 2. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his case before the cancellation order was passed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the total income of the petitioner, including income from sources other than the lands under cultivation, cannot be taken into account to disqualify him as a landless poor person, as the income certificate did not specify the income from such sources. The court also held that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain his case before the cancellation order was passed, which violated the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court set aside the cancellation order and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's objections and pass a fresh order on his status as a landless poor person.
JUDGMENT
R Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner is a lessee of the 3rd respondent-temple, over Ac.3.43 cents of land in R.S.No.472 of Vellaturu Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District, for the past few decades. He had earlier been declared as landless Poor Person in accordance with The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act) and The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short "the Rules") by way of proceedings in R.C.No.B1/11440/2003, dated 19.09.2003, issued by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, in the course of review of the said status, the petitioner was again called upon for an enquiry. After the said enquiry, the 2nd respondent by proceedings vide R.C.No.B1/3248/2021-3, dated 18.06.2021, had cancelled the status of the petitioner as landless poor person on the ground that the income certificate produced by the petitioner showed that the income from all sources is Rs.60,000/- per annum, which was in excess of the income limit of Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum, fixed under Section 82 of the Act. It was also held that the petitioner was cultivating Ac.2.88 cents in various survey numbers in the said village which was in his name in the revenue records apart from cultivating the Ac.3.43 cents of land as the lessee of the 3rd respondent temple.
2. Aggrieved by the said proceedings vide R.C.No.B1/3248/2021-3, dated 18.06.202, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said order suffers from two infirmities.
4. Firstly, the explanation to Sec.82(2) of the Act stipulates that the landless poor person would lose that status if his monthly income other than from the lands under his cultivation exceeds Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum. In the present case, the overall income which was shown as Rs.60,000/- does not set out how much of the Rs.60,000/- total income is income obtained from sources other than from the lands under cultivation. In the absence of that exercise, the total income of the petitioner cannot be taken into account, to disqualify him, as a landless poor person.
5. The 2nd infirmity, according to Sri Kambhampati Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer that he is holding Ac.2.88 cents of land in his personal name, is not correct as he is holding the said land as the Kartha of the joint family and as such, the said extent of land cannot be counted again his holding. In any event, his main contention is that he was not given an opportunity of setting out these facts before the 2nd respondent and that there was a failure of principle of natural justice as he was not given such an opportunity.
6. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent-temple would submit that the Village Revenue Officer's certificate showing that the petitioner was personally holding Ac.2.88 cents was infact submitted by the petitioner himself and as such, the petitioner cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice.
7. To clear the aforesaid controversy, the records relating to the proceedings were summoned by this Court. A perusal of the said record does not show as to whether the certificate of the Village Revenue Officer was obtained separately by the 2nd respondent or whether it was furnished by the petitioner himself.
8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:
ii) The said proceedings shall be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner;
iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to place all relevant material before the 2nd respondent to demonstrate; a) what is his income from the land held by him and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.