STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus NALLAMILLI RAMI REDDI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 29-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
NALLAMILLI RAM! REDD! AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowments Act, 1987-Section 82-Validity of 
A 
B 
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments-Leases in respect of C 
agricultural land-Cancellation of-Held not violative of Articles 14 and 21 
of the Constitution-Section 82 does not deprive tenants of their livelihood--
Article 31-A held not applicable-Identification of 'landless' poor persons' 
and protection given to them is justified. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 21 and 31-A. 
Article 14 prohibits 'class legislation' and not 'classification/or purpose 
of legislation'-Test of permissible classification-What is-Charitable or 
Religious Institutions form a separate class: 
The constitutional validity of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 was 
challenged before Andhra Pradesh High Court. A Single Judge of the Hindu 
Court held that (i) sub-section (I) of Section 82 is arbitrary and ultra vires of 
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution to the extent of lessees who are marginal 
D 
E 
or small farmers, are not excluded from its effect; (ii) sub-section (2) is F 
unconstitutional in its entirety. Appeals preferred by State Governments were 
dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court. It held that Section 82(1) of 
the Act is violative of equal protection clause of the Constitution inasmuch 
as the provisions of Section 82 singles out the tenants of the lands held by 
religious institutions or endowments resulting in putting an end to their G 
tenancy rights; and the said classification was not only unreasonable but also 
it had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved : (i) as to payment of rent 
or augmentation of the revenue of the religious institutions inasmuch as the 
rents stood frozen by reason of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy 
Act, 1956 and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural 
Land Act, 1950; (ii) that sale of lands is not a feasible proposition; (iii) that H · 
287 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
there!~ no exclusion of application of the tenancy Acts and the lands held by 
religious institutions or endowments in treating the tenants in question 
differently suffers from the vice of discrimination by putting an end to their 
leases. It also come to the conclusion that sub-section (2) puts an end to tenancy 
rights of the landless poor persons too though in name this sub-section 
B pnrports to save them from the cancellation. [298-GI 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalr of the appellant-State 
that (i) charitable or religious institution on endowment fall into a separate 
category and form a class by themselves; such tenants coming under them 
also form separate class and they can be treated differently from others; (ii) 
C in striking down the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, the High Court has 
unnecessarily relied upon far too much on the tenancy laws in force in the 
State to fetter the legislature in cancelling the existing agricultural leases and 
lands belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment. 
In the connected writ petitions it was contended that (i) there is a 
D discernible difference between the applicability of the Act which is for 
agricultural lands and other properties and Section 80 of the Act is applicable 
to other properties; (ii) tenancies are inheritable and in such a situation 
without paying compensation could not have deprived the rights of the same; 
(iii) that Section 38-E of the Telangana Act provides for conferment of 
E ownership rights to tenants in question and th is aspect has not been considered 
by the High Court; (iv) the livelihood of the tenants being deprived, the 
provision is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution; (v) the tenants in 
question are entitled to compensation under Article 31A. 
F 
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petitions the Court 
HELD : I. Whether a tenancy Act should be applicable to a religious 
institution or should be kept out of it is not a matter for the court to decide. 
How far a tenancy Act is applicable to a religious institution and to what extent 
it should be limited is a matter for the legislature to decide. But such a policy 
should not be irrational. On that basis, the court cannot interfere with the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.