SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 24601

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. Manmadha Rao, J
Annavarapu Asirvadam – Appellant
Versus
Prl Secy Endowments – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 47 of 2015 | 7666 of 2015 | 19483 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.S. Murthy
For the Respondents: GP for Endowments

To qualify for land purchase benefits under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, a lessee must be a 'landless poor person' and demonstrate six years of continuous possession prior to the Act's commencement.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 82 - Agricultural land lease - Status of landless poor person - Continuous possession for six years - Constitutional validity - Petitioners claimed status as landless poor, sought to purchase temple land under Section 82, denied due to lack of proof of status and continuous possession - Court held that entitlement requires both subsistence of lease at commencement of Act and six years continuous possession - Authority's rejection of claim based on records and income limit deemed appropriate - No interference warranted in reasoned orders of authorities unless challenged on specific factual merits. (Paras 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, claiming to be landless poor, asserted long-term cultivation of respondent-temple lands. They challenged rejection of their application to be declared landless poor for the purpose of purchasing land under Section 82, arguing they were entitled to benefits despite previous auction participation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the 2nd respondent passed reasoned orders considering both legal provisions and factual limitations (income levels). It noted that certificate evidence did not sufficiently establish the status required under the Act to override the authorities' rejection.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the status of 'landless poor' under Section 82 of the Act and whether the rejection of their applications by the authorities was legally sound.

Ratio Decidendi: To qualify for the benefit of purchasing temple lands under Section 82, a person must establish continuous possession and lease subsistence as of the date of the commencement of the Act and must qualify as a landless poor person under the specified income and landholding limits.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of procedural history and factual contention regarding land lease rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments concerning the interpretation of section 82 regarding continuous possession. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's interpretation of statutory requirements for 'landless poor' status. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. resolution of petitions, upholding administrative findings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? - Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals - Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? - Yes -

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Murthy

Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments

Gist :

Head Note:

Cases referred: 1. 2003 (3) A.P.L.J. 1 (HC)

COMMON ORDER :

As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.47 of 2015 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, all petitioners are Land Less Poor persons and their elders were given lease hold rights by the then management of the 4th respondent temple. Since then i.e., for the past 60 years, their families have been cultivating the lands belonging to the 4th respondent temple for their livelihood. This fact is not disputed by the authorities. Due to poverty and illiteracy the petitioners’ elders have not availed the benefit given under Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987. Some of the petitioners herein were served with Form-I notice in the year 2003. Aggrieved with the same, they have filed WP No.15752 of 2003 before the composite High Court at Hyderabad and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Section 82 of the Act. Till the decision is taken, status quo was also ordered. In pursuance of the same, the officers took details from the petitioners with a letter to extend the benefit under Section 82 of the Act declaring the petitioners as landless poor persons. But no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Accordingly, the petitioners made several requests. Though the petitioners are entitled to purchase the land which they have hold and cultivate as stipulated under Section 82 of the Act, to protect their continuous possession they were forced to participate in public auction conducted by the 4th respondent temple for every 3 years. All the years the petitioners are participating in auctions and they were also extended the lease period for 2013-2014 on condition of giving 23 bags of rice per Acre and accordingly the petitioners have given the same and sought for further extension. While the matter stood thus, surprisingly the authorities have issued proceedings vide L.DS.No.2/14931/2014, dated 28.06.2014 rejecting the request of the petitioners and further directing the 4th respondent to conduct public auction as per G.O.Ms.No379 dated 11.03.2003, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition.

4. This Court, vide order, dated 07.01.2015,in WP No.47 of 2015, has granted status quoobtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties, for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the same is being extended from time to time.

5. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioners in W.P.No.47 of 2015, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in other writ petitions i.e., WP Nos.7666 of 2015 and 19483 of 2014.

6. The counter affidavits have been filed in all the Writ Petitions.

7. In the Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in WP No.47 of 2015, while denying all the allegations made in the petitions, inter alia, it is stated that, the Executive officer of the 4th respondent temple issued notific

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top