MERLA VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. RAMAKRISHNAYYA Vs. REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-2018-7-32
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 05,2018

Merla Venkateswara Rao S/O. Ramakrishnayya Appellant
VERSUS
Regional Joint Commissioner And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, which is in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, questioning the orders dated 23.06.2007 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District - 2nd respondent herein, as confirmed by the orders dated 11.02.2008 of the Regional Joint Commissioner - 1st respondent herein.
(2.) Petitioner herein claims to be a landless poor person and sought benefit of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (herein after, 'the Act'). It is the contention of the petitioner that he, being the landless poor person, has satisfied the conditions and was eligible to be declared as landless poor person on account of the fact that his income does not exceed Rs. 1,000/- per month and further contends that he does not own residential property exceeding 200 square yards in Urban Area. The other contention of the petitioner is that he is tenant of the agricultural land and in those circumstances, he ought to have been declared as a landless poor person and was eligible for the benefits under Section 82 of the Act.
(3.) The Assistant Commissioner - 2nd respondent herein, after elaborate enquiry, had recorded a finding that the petitioner was not a tenant as on the date of commencement of the Act 30 of 1987, dated 28.05.1981; he was a chronic defaulter of payment of Maktha and as on the date of passing of the orders, the due amount that has to be paid by the petitioner is Rs. 5,070/-; there are no continuation orders approving his lease and thereby, he is not a cultivating tenant in terms of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and he also does not possess a registered lease agreement between himself and the temple authorities. For all the above reasons, petitioner is not eligible to be declared as a landless poor person and consequently cannot avail the benefits under Section 82 of the Act.;


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