Existing rights of landless poor persons cannot be revoked without clear legislative intent for retrospective application, and principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actions.

ORDER :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction (1) declaring G.O.Ms.No.425 Revenue Endowments I Department dated 9.11.2015 making amendments to Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003, as illegal and is in contravention of Section 82 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments 1987 and also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and struck down the said Rules and also 2 declare the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 30.4.2016 rejecting his claim as small farmer as illegal and arbitrary during the subsistence of the Appeal No 6 of 2009 is pending before the 3rd respondent and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue him as lessee of the land situated in Sy No 605/7 admeasuring Ac 4 20 cents of Gangavaram inkollu Mandal Prakasam district as he being a small farmer, and pass such other order….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being a landless poor persons in cultivation of the land belongs to the 5^th respondent institution for over several decades. The land which was taken by the petitioner on lease for Rs.5400/- per annum payable to an extent of Ac 4.20 cents and he was declared as ‘small farmer’ by the 4^th respondent by conducting enquiry as contemplated under Rule 3 of un-amended Rules 2003. Later, the 4^th respondent has declared the petitioner as landless poor person vide Rc.No.B4/4570/2003, dated 27.7.2003. While the matter stood thus, the 4^th respondent rejected the petitioner’s claim to declare the petitioner as ‘small farmer’ by order dated 13.4.2009. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3^rd respondent vide Appeal No.6/2009 and the 3^rd respondent vide order dated 12.6.2009 has granted interim suspension by suspending the order passed by the 4^th respondent dated 13.4.2009, and held that the petitioner is an existing lessee and not in arrears of lease amount and agreed for enhancement of existing lease amount by 10%. The said appeal is pending consideration. Pursuant to the same, the lease amount is being enhanced from time to time. As on date, the petitioner is paying Rs.49,900/- p.a. to the total extent of land i.e., Ac 4.20 cents which is under lease. It is further stated that, when the petitioner ploughed and made the land ready for cultivation, without publication of notice, as per the amended rules, the auction was conducted by the respondents. Further, no tender-cum-Public auction was conducted three months before expiry of existing lease period. Further, the 5^th respondent has also not issued public notice of ten days. Without any notice and without cancellation of lease, which is in favour of the petitioner, the auction was conducted. Further, the petitioner was never dispossessed by the respondents by following the procedure contemplated under law. On enquiry, it came to know that the person, who participated in the auction, did not pay the bid amount. As such the 5^th respondent proceeded to conduct auction once again on 16.09.2016. So, immediately, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the 4^th respondent on 20.06.2016 stating that he do not possess any agricultural land, other than the land which is under lease belongs to the 5^th respondent institution. It is stated that the petitioner was also recognized as ‘small farmer’ by the 3^rd respondent and there are no dues of lease amount and the petitioner did not possess any other land. In the event of his dispossession, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss, as it would affect his livelihood. Hence, th