APHC010148962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7654/2025 Between: Marella Venkata Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was earlier recognized as landless poor person vide Proceedings, dated 31.05.2005. By virtue of the 2 said proceedings of 2005, the petitioner has been in occupation and cultivation of the subject land belonging to the 4th respondent. However, the 4th respondent issued notices to similarly situated persons, one Manduva Sreerama Murthy and Sivaiah on 07.04.2021, requiring them to submit the relevant certificates certifying their financial status and the certificate certifying them as small farmer within a period of 15 days. It is contended that the petitioner was not issued with any notice, however proposed to conduct fresh auction of the lease hold rights in respect of the subject lands. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition in 14336 of 2021. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the 5th respondent not to conduct any auction as long as the earlier certificate of landless poor issued in favour of the petitioner is in force. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued notice calling for explanation of the petitioner as to why the certificate, recognizing the petitioner as landless poor person should not be cancelled. The said certificates were cancelled vide Proceedings, dated 08.10.2021. 3. Against the cancellation of the said certificates, the petitioner has filed an Appeal in Appeal No.03 of 2021 before the 3rd respondent on 27.10.2024. The appellate authority taking into consideration the location of the subject land, which is alleged to have been located within the limits of a Municipality owing to the income certificate issued by the Tahsildar certifying the income of the petitioner from all sources as Rs.90,000/-, 3 confirmed the order of the 4th respondent and placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.425, dated 9.11.2015 which provides that the certificate issued in favour of a person as Land Less poor has to be reviewed every three years, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the 4th respondent. It is further contended that the Endowment authorities taking into consideration the location of the subject land has cancelled the certificate recognizing the petitioner as LLP. It is contended by the petitioner that the MRO has mentioned the income of the petitioner as Rs.90,000/- which is without any basis and it is his assumption. It is further argued that the petitioner has no other source of income other than the income from agriculture, and that he would fall within the definition of Land less person as defined under the provisions of Explanation to Section 82 of the Act. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments has placed on record a copy of instructions received by him. It is argued that the LLP granted is not perpetual and is subject to review for every three years. Therefore, the authorities proceedings for cancellation of LLC was rightly cancelled, having regard to the income certificate issued by the MRO which certifies the income of the petitioner as Rs.90,000/- per annum. 5. Considered the rival submissions. As seen from the impugned order, the 4th respondent, apart from taking into consideration the income of the petitioner income as certificated by the MRO at Rs.90,000/-, has also 4 taken into consideration the location of the land, which is now said to be falling within the Municipal limits of a Municipality, and observed that the petitioner is not entitled to be declared as a landless person. I am of the considered view that the order of the 4th respondent is not sustainable because he has taken into consideration the location of the land, which is now a Municipal area; the location of the land is not relevant for determining a person as a land less poor person within the provisions of the Act. The criterion prescribed under the Act is that the person seeking categorization as a landless person should not possess more than 2.5 acres of wetland; in the case of dry lands, it should not exceed 5 acres, and his income than the agricultural income should not exceed Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum. The 4th respondent has taken into consideration irrelevant factors. He did not independently conduct any enquiry as to the petitioner's income from agriculture and income other sources. The order of the 4th respondent is accordingly set aside, and the matter is remanded to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration. Further, the MRO is directed to conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioner has any other income other than agricultural income and if so, at what rate. Upon such enquiry being conducted by the MRO, the 4th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within three (03) months thereon, after giving due opportunity of hearing the petitioner. Till such time, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. 5 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 28.03.2025 MSI 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7654/2025 Date: 28.03.2025 MSI