CH SATYANARAYANA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM SUB COLLECTOR NARSAPURAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
LAWS(APH)-2008-2-83
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 13,2008

CH.SATYANARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-SUB-COLLECTOR, NARSAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARU DEVASTHANAM VS. BOKKA VENKATA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2010-8-129] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)PETITIONERS, who are five in number, are statedly statutory tenants of second respondent, namely, Sri Bheemeswaraswamy temple, Bhimalapuram Village, Achanta mandal, West Godavari District, in respect of land in R. S. No. 34/5 admeasuring acs. 5. 92, R. S. No. 95/1, and R. S. No. 90/4 admeasuring Ac. 1. 98 situated in said village. The land is owned by second respondent temple. Petitioners also allege that they are entitled for protection under provisions of andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy act, 1956 (for short, Tenancy Act) and that they are paying makta/annual rent without committing default or delay. In 1996, land was acquired by Government for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections. Petitioners made a petition to first respondent claiming 60% of the compensation as tenants, in vain. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring inaction of respondents in considering claim of petitioners for payment of 60% of the compensation as illegal, arbitrary and for such consequential direction.
(2.)SECOND respondent temple filed a counter-affidavit. Present status of petitioners as tenants is denied. It is stated that petitioners are not statutory tenants and there is no such declaration issued by competent civil Court, and therefore, they cannot be considered as such. Lease in favour of petitioners expired long back. Petitioners fell in arrears. Therefore, second respondent temple filed suits, being O. S. Nos. 101 of 1994 and 56 of 2001 and s. C. Nos. 18, 19 and 20 of 2000. Petitioners are no more cultivating tenants. It is also contended that by reason of judgment of supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Nallamilli kami Reddi, 2001 (6) ALD 95 (SC) = (2001) 7 SCC 708, Tenancy Act has no application to charitable religious institutions governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Act, 1987 (Endowments Act, for brevity ). Therefore, they are not entitled for apportionate compensation. Government- first respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit.
(3.)SRI Nagesh, learned Counsel representing Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for petitioners submits that a tenant governed by Tenancy Act is a "person interested" entitled to challenge acquisition proceedings and also claim apportionate share in compensation awarded by Government. He placed reliance on Samadhi Narayana v. State of A. P. , 1990 (1) ALT 237 (DB)and Bammidi Jagannayakulu v. District collector, Srikakulam, 2000 (3) ALD 15 = 1999 (3) ALT 733.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.