Back
ALOK ARADHE, N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Oruganti Jeethaiah – Appellant
Versus
Government of A. P. , Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad – Respondent
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
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 viabil....
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, 198....
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 actio....
The Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act does not apply to tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or charities, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court cannot entertain writ petitions related to land disputes already being adjudicated in specialized tribunals, directing parties to follow appropriate legal channels for resolution.
Ownership disputes regarding lands belonging to religious institutions must be resolved through the Endowments Tribunal, making writ petitions under Article 226 inappropriate.
The rights of tenants under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act are extinguished if the property is classified as belonging to a religious charity, especially after legislative amendments.
The Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act's provisions on tenant rights do not apply to properties held by religious charities; rights can be extinguished retrospectively by legislative amendments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
