1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 47. 7666 OF 2015 AND 19483 OF 2014 WRIT PETITION NO: 47 OF 2015 Between: 1. Annavarapu Asirvadam, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah, Age 55 years, 2. Annavarapu Gnana Prakasarao, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah, Age 62 years 3. Annavarapu Yesudayamma, w/o. Late Annavarapu Gnanesu, Age 54 years, 4. Annavarapu Arogyam, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah, Age 67 years, 5. Annavarapu Joseph Paul, S/o. Arogyam, Age 42 years, 6. Annavarapu Vijaybabu, S/o. Asirvadam, age 34 years, 7. Pandi Marthamma, S/o. W/o. Sudhakar, Age 36 years, 8. Annavarapu Souri, S/o. Yesudass, Age 48 years, 9. Annavarapu Krishna Chaitanya, S/o. Sori, age 25 years, 10. Annavarapu Anand Kumar, S/o. Late Apparao, Age 48 years, 11. Annavarapu Arun Kumar, S/o. Late Apparao, Age 50 years, 12. Annavarapu Sakunthalamma, W/o. Late Apparao, Age 70 years, ' 13. Moddu Vijayakumari, W/o. Pandu, Age 42 years, 14. Kotcharla Jyothi, W/o. Late Koteswara Rao, Age 38 years, (All are Agricultural Labourers and residents of Mannava Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh) ...PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2 ■'f 2. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, Guntur District 4. Sri Bhavanarayana Swamy & Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Devasthanam, Represented by its Executive Officer, Ponnur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under,Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order, Orders more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit and of section 82 of AP Endowments and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 and the rules there under though they poor as are landless egal and unconstitutional violative of article 14, 21 of constitution III of India and consequently set aside the orders dtd 29.12.2014 in Appeal Nos. 02 to 15 of 2014 on the file of 2"^^ respondent herein along orders of Respondent three while declaring that that the entitled to benefit under section 82 of AP Endowments and Hindu Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and with earlier petitioners are Religious the rules there under with consequential benefit. LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 52 OF 201.*^) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents and their interfering with possession and enjoyment of lands held by the petitioners by protecting the possession over lands. agents from I.A. NO: 6 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 22047 OF 2015^ Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dt.07.01.2015, which extended vide its order dt. 22.01.2015 restraining the respondents from interfering with our possession over the lands mentioned in WP. 47 of 2015. was I.A. NO: 7 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 22048 OF 20151 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dtd 5-6-2015 circulated in village on 10-6-2015 issued by Respondent 4. > LA. NO: 2 OF 2015(WVMP. NO: 190 OF 201.5) Between: Sri Bhavanarayana Swamy & Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Devasthanam Represented by its Executive Officer, Ponnur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER/R4 AND 1. Annavarapu Asirvadam, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah, Age 55 years, 2. Annavarapu Gnana Prakasarao, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah, Age 62 3. Annavarapu Yesudayamma, w/o. Late Annavarapu Gnanesu years, 4. Annavarapu Arogyam, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah, Age 67 5. Annavarapu Joseph Paul, S/o. Arogyam, Age 42 6. Annavarapu Vijaybabu, S/o. Asirvadam, age 34 years, 7. Pandi Marthamma, S/o. W/o. Sudhakar, Age 36 8. Annavarapu Souri, S/o. Yesudass, Age 48 9. Annavarapu Krishna Chaitanya, S/o. Sori, age 25 years, 10. Annavarapu Anand Kumar, S/o. Late Apparao, Age 48 11. Annavarapu Arun Kumar, S/o. Late Apparao, Age years Age 54 years years years. years years 50 years. 4 12. Annavarapu Sakunthalamma, W/o. Late Apparao, Age 13. Moddu Vijayakumari, W/o. Pandu, Age 42 14. Kotcharla Jyothi, W/o. Late Koteswara Rao 70 years, years, Age 38 years. (R1 to R14 are Agricultural Labourers Village and residents of Mannava Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh) ...RESPONDENTS/ WRIT PETITIONERS 15. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Endowments its Principal Secretary, Buildings, Secretariat, Department, Hyderabad, Telangana. 16. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Chittoor District. Secretariat Department, Tirupati, 17. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments District Department, Guntur, Guntur ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the in support of the petition, the Higfi Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt: 07.01.2015 made in WP.No.47/2015 as extended on 22.01.2015 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. S. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i T. M. PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 7666 OF 201 Between: 1. Ghanta Sfiankar, S/o. agriculture. 2. Ghanta Varalakshmamma, W/o. years, agriculture. 3. Ghanta Veera Raghavaiah, S/o. years, agriculture. Late Bhilhanyudu, Aged about 48 years. Late Bhilhanyudu, Aged about 70 Late Bhilhanyudu, Aged about 59 5 4. Ghanta Ravindra Babu, S/o. Late Bbilhanyiidu, Aged about 51 years, agriculture. 5. Ghanta Sarath Babu, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, Aged about 30 agriculture. 6. Ghanta Srinuvasulu, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 52 years, agriculture. 7. Makineni Shankar Rao, S/o. Srihari Rao, aged about 35 years. All are R/o. Jaladi Village, Ediapadu Mandal, Guntur District. years ...PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, District 4. Sri Chenna Malleswara Swamy Temple, Jaladi Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. 5. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Jaladi, Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. ( Both R4 and R5 represented by Executive officer. Group Temples, Purushotama patnam, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District) Guntur, Guntur ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the respondents in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners for the benefit under section 82 one action of the are not entitled of Ak bndowments and Hindu Religious there under though they ass poor as illegal and unconstitutional violative of article 14 Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and the rules , 21 of 6 Constitution of India and in No’s.16 to 22 of 2014 on the file of 2 consequently set aside the orders dtd 29.12.2014 nd respondent herein along with earlier orders of Respondent three while declaring that the petitioners to benefit under section 82 of AP Endowments and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and the rules there under with consequential res institutions. benefit pertaining to lands of fourth and fifth LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 10148 OF Petition under Section 151 2015) CPC is filed praying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the auction or change the nature of land covered by the appeals filed by the petitioners belonging to Respondent No.4 and No.5 temples. respondents form conducting fresh Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. S. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 5: SRI V. T. M. PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 19483 OF 7014 Between: 1. Annavarapu Vljaybabu, S/o. Asirvadam age 34 years 2. Annavarapu Asirvadam, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah 3. Annavarapu Yesudayamma, w/o. Age 55 years, Late Annavarapu Gnanesu, Age 54 years 4. Annavarapu Arogyam. S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah , Age 67 years, 5. Annavarapu Joseph Paul, S/o. Arogyam. Age 42 years, 6, Pandi Marthamma, S/o. W/o. Sudhakar, 7. Annavarapu Gnana Prakasarao, S/o. Late Pedagnanaiah, 8. Annavarapu Souri S/o. Y Age 36 years. esudass. Age 48 years, 9. Annavarapu Krishna Chaitanya, S/o. Sori, age 25 years, 10. Annavarapu Anand Kumar, S/o. Late Apparao , Age 48 years. 7 11. Annavarapu Arun Kumar, S/o. Late Apparao, Age 50 years, 12. Annavarapu Sakunthalamma, W/o. Late Apparao, Age 70 years, 13. Moddu Vijayakumari, W/o. Pandu, Age 42 years, 14. Kotcharla Jyothi, W/o. Late Koteswara Rao, Age 38 years. All are Agricultural Labourers and residents of Mannava Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, State of, Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. Sri Bhavanarayana Swamy & Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Devasthanam, Represented by its Executive Officer, Ponnur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Asst. Commissioner And Executive Officer, M/s. Sri Bhavanarayana Swamy & Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Devasthanam, Ponnur, Guntur District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent one nd issuing the in impugned proceedings vide L.DS.No.2/14931/2014, dt. 28.06.2014 and further directing the 3rd respondent to conduct public auction as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Sec. 82(2) of The AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 and violation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit given under section 82(2) of The AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions' and 8 and Endowments Act, 1987 declaring the petitioners are land less poor by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide L.DS.No. 28.06.2014. 2/14931/2014, dt. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 24392 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filedpraying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including conducting public auction on 14,07.2014 for lease hold right for the lands temple in possession of petitioners. of respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. S. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI V. T. M. PRASAD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 *HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI +WRIT PETITION No. 47. 7666 of 2015 and 19483 of 2014 +WP No.47/2015 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) #Annavarapu Asirvadam, & 13 Others, and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) $Prl Secy Endowments Hyd 3 Others JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025 THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes - Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals 2. Yes - Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? 3. Yes - DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 2 THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO ±WRIT PETITION Nos. 47. 7fifi6 of 201fi pnH iQAR'i of 2014 % 24.01.2025 WP No.47/2ni/1 # Between: #Annavarapu Asirvadam, & 13 Others, and Others AND ...PETITIONER(S) $Prl Secy Endowments Hyd 3 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Murthy ! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments <Gist: >Head Note; ? Cases referred: 1. 2003 (3)A.P.LJ. 1 (HC) 3 APHC010107942015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY .THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 47 & 7666/2015 and 19483/2014 WP No.47 of 2015: Between: Annavarapu Asirvadam, & 13 Others, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND PrI Secy Endowments Hyd 3 Others and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.KSMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VT M PRASAD 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following: 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 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 respondent temple for their livelihood. This fact is not disputed by the Due to poverty and illiteracy the petitioners’ elders have availed the benefit given under Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987. persons and their elders were to the 4th authorities. not Some of the petitioners herein were served with Form-1 notice in the year 2003. Aggrieved with the same, they have filed WP No.15752 of 2003 before the composite 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 High Court at Hyderabad and the same 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 4^^ respondent temple for every 3 years. All the years the petitioners are 5 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 4‘^ 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.. WPNos.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 2"''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 4"^ respondent temple issued notification dated 30.06.2014 for conducting of public auction of the lease hold rights of wet land in various survey numbers of Mannava Village admeasuring Ac. 19.85 cents in 14 bits and the auction was scheduled to be held on 6 14.07.2014 and 15.07.2014. Questioning the said auction Hon'ble High Court by are small farmers under entitled for protection under Section 82(2) of the AP. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions notice, the petitioners herein approached this way of W.P.No. 19483/2014 claiming that they & Endowments Act, 30/1987, in W.P.No.19483/2014 dated 14.07.2014 but this Court vide W.P.M.P.No.24392/2014 directed the petitioners to make an application in terms of Rules, notified i G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endowments-1) Department in dt.11.03.2003, for on such receipt of applications, he 3'’'' respondent shall consider the same within 2 weeks thereafter in accordance being declared as small farmers and with law and pass a reasonable order either status of small farmers. While the auction granting or refusing to grant the may go on and be finalized, the petitioners shall not be disentitled to all such rights, which accrue to a small farmer, in case they so declared, merely because they have been dispossessed from the subject lands in the interregnum. Grant of lease hold rights, pursuant to the auction, shall be subject to further orders in this W.P.M.P. The petitioners may also participate in the auction without prejudice to their rights either to be declared as small farmers in terms of the Rules are or to claim the benefit, which the small farmers are entitled to, under Section 82(2) of the Act. This auction for the lands is conducted on 14.07.2014 and 15.07.2014 with 38 persons have signed the auction conditions and 32 of them have paid tlie initial deposit of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioners also have participated in the auction. The auction was contested by the rival groups 7 offering the bid amount to Rs.1,40,000/- per acre on an average. There one particular bit admeasuring Ac. 1.00 cents described as Plot No.181 in the auction notice, which was offered an amount of Rs.5,01,000/- by one Sri Bandlamudi Chimpiraiah. In respect of Plot No. 180, the amount offered Rs.3,01,000/- The said auction result was vetoed by the Commissioner of Endowments, in Rc.no.M2/1439/2014 Dt.12.09.2014. As the auction was was contested beyond the reality. Therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in the Appeal Nos.02 to 15 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2014, and also there are no merits in the writ petition and hence it is is liable to be dismissed. 8. The 4*^ respondent has also filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petitions and submits that, since the Commissioner, Endowments Department issued Memo in Rc.No.M2/14931/2014 dated 12.09.2014 vetoing the auction and directed the Executive Officer of the temple to conduct fresh action, by forfeiting EMD Accounts. It is stated that the writ petition in WP No.26826/2014 was disposed of with a direction not to dispossess the petitioners, pending disposal of the appeal if any preferred before the Regional Joint Commissioner. It is further stated that the Appeal Nos. 2 to 15 of 2014 filed by the petitioners herein were considered after perusing the records and hearing both the parties were rightly dismissed by the 2nd respondent. The orders passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner are valid, true and correct. As the some of the petitioners income is more than statutory limit of Rs. 12,000/- as per their own documents filed before the 8 authority, there are no lease approval orders from the competent authority for continuous 6 years prior to commencement of Act 30/87, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners are not entitled to be declared as landless poor persons and as such, they have no right to continue on the land belonging to the temple. In view of the above circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitione and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. rs 10. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petitions, submits that as per Section 82(2) of the Act 30 of 1987 it is dear that the six years period stipulated is not necessarily on the date of commencement of the Act, the plain reading of the provision is not conveying the said meaning therefore the observation made by the 1®‘ respondent that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in question continuously for a period of six years prior to commencement of the Act is contrary to the said provision. To support his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in Mattaarthi Dharma Rao and Ors. And The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and another^ wherein the High Court of Judicature: Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that: “ Then coming to the contention of the petitioners that for the purpose of determining the holding of the cultivating tenant, the leased land belonging to the Institution/Endowment shall be excluded, it is relevant to note that cancellation of lease 2003(3) A.P.L.J. 1(HC) 9 under Section 82(1) applies to all leases subsisting as on the date of the commencement of the Act, where the lessee is not a landless poor person. The Explanation to Section 82(2) clearly states that a landless poor person means a person whose total extent of land either as owner or as cultivating tenant or both, doop not exceed 2.5 acres of wet or 5 acres of dry land. Thus, there is no ambiguity and there can be no question of interpreting this definition to exclude the land of the Institution held by the petitioners as cultivating tenants....” 11. While relying upon the above decision, learned counsel for the petitioners requests to allow these writ petitions. 12. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavits, submits that the combined reading of Sub Section 1 and 2 of Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987 would envisage teat there must be a lease subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act and such person is possession of the land for a period not less than six years, is alone entitled to nd Therefore, the orders passed by the 2 claim the benefit there under. respondent is legal and warrants no interference and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 13. Perused the material on record. 14. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that the petitioners filed the Appeals before the 2"^ respondent, which are impugned in these writ petitions, wherein, it is observed that,as per Section 82 (2) of Act 30 of 1987, it is clear that the six years period stipulated is not necessarily on the date of commencement of the Act, the plain reading of above provision is not conveying the said meaning therefore the observation made by the 1st respondent that the appellant is not in possession of the land In question 10 continuously for a period of six years prior to commencement of Act i contrary to the said provision. Per contra the submitted that combined reading of Sub Section 1 30/1987 would envisage that there must be IS counsel for the respondents and 2 of Section 82 of Act a lease subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act and such person in possession of the land for a period not less than six years, is alone entitled to claim the benefit there under. 15. On an analysis of Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987, extracted below ; Section 82 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable Endowments Act, 1987 82. Lease of Agricultural lands: and Hindu Religious Institutions and mSdr nr endowed for the purpose of any notwiml H ""dsistmg on the date of commencement of this Act shall -e, he,, h, a person wtit value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideraUon shalf be oaid erreced ,s 16. This Court further observed from the material specific case that the petitioner’s forefathers on record that, it is a were inducted into possession of the property 60 years back and they were forced to participate in the public auction conducted by the 2"^ respondent in the years mentioned in the affidavits to protect their pn.s.se.s.sinn It is also clear that there must bo lease executed in favour of n vnlid a person and the said lease shall be subsisting six years continuously prior to commencement of the Act 30 of 1987. 11 17. 11 17. It is also to be noted from the Certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pnnnur, “the petitioners/appellants are having no landed property in Mannava village of Ponnur IMandal. This will not however speak of other landed property if any held by the individual and family member elsewhere i.e., rest of Mannava village. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioners/appellants are not entitled to claim their Status as landless poor persons in respect of the land in question and the 1®* respondent rightly rejected their claim under the impugned orders. 18. This Court further observed that, since 2003, the writ petitioners are agitating the same issue before this Court and approaching the revenue authorities and filed writ petitions before this Court claiming as landless poor persons and that this Court has also considered and directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners as landless poor persons by remanding the matters back to the respondent authorities for examining the issue and pass appropriate reasoned orders. Further, though the respondent authorities while observing the case and legal status of the petitioners, passed reasoned orders, but the petitioners challenging the same on violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India that too not challenging the merits of the case in accordance with law. nd 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels that the 2 respondent has passed reasoned orders in all the Appeals filed by the petitioners and warrants no interference. However, if at all any grievance, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the impugned orders on merits. 12 20. With the above observation, all the Writ Petitions There shall be no order as to costs. are disposed of. 21. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous writ petitions, shall stand closed. applications in all the Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC^r^N OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon’ble DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.. 2. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, Guntur District 4. The Executive Officer, Sri Bhavanarayana Swamy & Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Devasthanam, Ponnur, Guntur District. 5. The Executive officer, Sri Chenna Malleswara Swamy Temple, Jaladi Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District 6. The Executive officer, Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Jaladi , Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. 7. The Asst. Commissioner and Executive Officer, M/s. Sri Bhavanaraya Swamy & Sri Kasi Visveswara Swamy Devasthanam, Ponnur, Guntur District na 8. One CC to Sri K. S. Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri V. T. M. Prasad, SC for Endowments [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 10. [OUT] 10 11. 9 LR Copies. 12. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 13. The Secretary, A.P. Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 14. Three CD Copies. ssb tvC 12 HIGH COURT DATED;24/01/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.47, 7666 of 2015 and 19483 of 2014 *5 12 FEB 2025 ^ Current Section . ^ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS