IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to Section 82 of the A.P. Endowments Act, excluding lands in Municipalities from purchase rights of protected tenants, is constitutional and justified based on urban agricultural viability.

ORDER :

(N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 24 of the A.P. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 33 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Principal Act’) purporting to add the words “Other than those lands situated Municipalities and Municipal Corporation” after the words “in respect of lease of Agricultural Lands” in Sub-Section 2 of Section 82 of the Principal Act and further adding Explanation-II to Section 82 of the Principal Act, as being unconstitutional, illegal and void.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners, along with others, were the protected tenants in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.11, 34, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 58, 59, 61, 64 and 65 of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject lands’). The subject lands were earlier belonging to one Bhadrinath, who was the pattedar and landholder while the petitioners and others were protected tenants thereon within the meaning of the term under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenancy Act’). The said Bhadrinath is alleged to have conveyed the subject lands, along with some other lands owned by him in Khanamet revenue village, in favour of the 2nd respondent, Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, by a registered deed dated 02.05.1951 bearing document No.796/1951. In the process of implementation of the provisions of Tenancy Act, the petitioners and others had been recorded as the ‘Protected Tenants’ of the subject lands while the 2nd respondent was recorded as the ‘Landholder’ in Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 and the same has become final.

3. The petitioners, while referring to Section 38 of the Act, which is provided for the right of the protected tenants to purchase the interest of the landholders subject to certain conditions and limitations. Section 38-A provided for mutual agreement between the landholders and tenants for transfer of the landholders’ interest to the protected tenants without any conditions or limitations. While Sub-Section (1) of Section 40 of the Tenancy Act declares the Tenancy as heritable Sub-Section (4) thereof declares that the rights of the protected tenants in the land as 60% and the rights of the landholder limited to 40%.

4. Further, the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature had amended the Tenancy Act by adding Section 38-E thereto vide Act, 15/1971 and brought it into force with effect from 01.01.1973. The act of enforcement of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act ensured that all the protected tenants to become owners of the lands held by them as protected tenants with effect from 01.01.1973 by operation of statute, wherever the total lands held by the landholder exceeded two family holdings.

5. It is further submitted that the A.P. Legislature had passed the Amendment Act No.28/2002 on 27.12.2002 purporting to add clause (g) to Section 102 of the said Act and thereafter challenging the Constitutional validity of the said Amending Act 28/2002 dated 27.12.2002 purporting to amend Section 102 of Tenancy Act and also challenging Constitutional validity of Sub-Section 5 of Section 82 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, thereafter, the petitioners had filed W.P. No.23076 of 2003 and the said writ petition was heard quite for some time by a Bench of this Court and reserved for judgment in April, 2007 and later delivered the judgment on 31.12.2007. In the meanwhile, the A.P. Legislature brought about the impugned amendment by Act No.33/2007 on 14.12.2007. It was therefore obvious that there was no occasion to challenge the validity of the impugned provisions which brought above the amendment to Sub-Section (2) of Section 82 and added explanation-II thereto. By virtue of the same, the petitioners could not become the owners by operation of law and as an alternative plea, t