ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. The writ appeal and the batch of writ petitions arise out of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Tenancy Act’).
2. WA No. 514 of 1997 has been preferred aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-3-1997 of the learned single Judge rendered in WP No.4473 of 1997. By the said judgment, the learned single Judge has repelled the contention of the writ appellant, who questioned the jurisdiction of the
Tenancy Tribunal in entertaining ATC No.67 of 1996 filed under Section 6 of the Tenancy Act for fixation of fair rent. The said application for fixation of fair rent was filed by Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Antarvedi of East Godavari District. As similar pleas have been raised in the above batch of writ petitions, the same have been tagged on to the writ appeal.
3. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petitions. The writ petitioners are the cultivating tenants within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Tenancy Act. The lands belong to the Endowment governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Endowments Act).
4. Tenancy Act came into force on 9-9-1956 and it was amended by A.P. Act 39 of 1974. Section 18 of the Tenancy Act contains saving clause and completely excludes its operation to the lands in which plantation crops are raised etc., as mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof. Coming to sub-section (2) of Section 18, which deals with the lands belonging to Charitable and Religious Institutions or Endowments, the saving clause is only limited to the application of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Tenancy Act. It is apt to extract Section 18(2) of the Tenancy Act, which reads:
“(2) The provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall not apply to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment, falling within the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966), but the provisions of other sections of this Act, shall apply to
every such lease, subject to the following modifications, namely: –
(i) the word “rent” in relation to such land shall be construed as rent in force at the commencement of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974; and where reasonable rent has been fixed under clause (e) of the said sub-section (1) of Section 74, the word “rent” shall be construed as the reasonable rent so fixed; and
(ii)in sub-section (3) of Section 10 and in sub-section (3) of Section 12, for the expression “subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 6” the expression “subject to the provisions of clause (c) of the said sub-section (1) of Section 74″ shall be substituted.”
5. Sections 3 to 7 of the Tenancy Act are not made applicable to a lease of land falling within the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Endowments Act, 1966. But the provisions of other sections of the Tenancy Act are made applicable subject to the modifications mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Tenancy Act mentioned above. The net result is that insofar as the leases held by the petitioners over the lands of the endowment is concerned, they are governed by the provision contained in Section 74(1)(e) of the Endowments Act, 1966 which reads :
“(e) The Government shall constitute a Committee consisting of such persons as may be prescribed for the purpose of fixation of reasonable rent for the agricultural land which is leased to a tenant. The Committee so constituted shall fix the reasonable rent and determine the other terms and conditions of the lease relating to rent in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf. The rent so fixed and the terms and conditions so determined shall have effect
notwithstanding anything in nay law for the time being in force relating to the tenancy.”
6. Endowments Act of 1996 has been repealed by A.P. Act 30 of 1987 introducing Section 82 by which provision, all the leases over the lands belonging to the Endowments as on the date of commencement of the said Act, i.e., 28-5-1987, stood cancelled. The same is contained in subsection (1), while in sub-section (2) exception has been made to only such persons, who are landless poor, but they are also subjected to compulsorily purchase with a default clause.
7. The provisions contained in subsections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987 came under attack in WP No.4026 of 1988. The said writ petition was dealt with by a learned single Judge, who, by his judgment dated 19-12-1988 held the above provisions to be ultra vires the Constitution. WA No.334 of 1989 was filed against the said judgment and a Division Bench of this Court in S. Narayana v. State of A.P., 1990 (1) ALT 237, affirmed the view taken by the learned single Judge declaring the above provision as violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. It is stated that the said judgment rendered by the Division Bench in S.Narayana’s case (supra) is carried in appeal to the Supreme Court and is pending adjudication by the Apex Court. It is also stated that the Apex Court did not stay the operation of the judgment of the Division Bench mentioned above.
8. A piquant situation has now arisen in view of the repeal of the Endowments Act, 1966 and striking down of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of the Endowments Act, 1987. A look at Section 74 of the Endowments Act, 1966 makes it clear that clauses (a) to (c) of sub-
section (1) deal with gifts, sales, exchanges or mortgages of any immovable property belonging to the charitable and Religious Institutions or Endowments and have been bodily lifted and enacted in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Endowments Act of 1987. Only clauses (d), (dd), (e) and (f) of Endowments Act, 1966 have been omitted cancelling the subsisting leases.
9. In any event, even under Section 74 of the Endowment Act, 1966 fair rent fixation for Endowment lands like the instant one could have been fixed only by the Government in accordance with clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 74 thereof in view of the saving clause contained in subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Tenancy Act. Of course, the learned single Judge in the order under writ appeal directed the parties to raise the said jurisdictional question before the Special Officer. But, we are of the considered view that whenever jurisdictional questions arise necessitating interpretation of statutory provisions and particularly complicated as in the instant cases, it is always desirable that this Constitutional Court to take up such interpretation so as to have binding authority. In view of the lack of jurisdiction in the Special Officers as mentioned above, the Special Officers cannot try ATCs (Andhra Tenancy Cases) filed before them. As the Endowments Act, 1966 has been repealed, the Government cannot take-up the fixation of fair rent, either. Result is the tenants are entitled to enjoy the rents without fixation of fair rent from time to time. But, we cannot legislate, which is the function of the Government. For a decade, the Government did not take any action to legislate in the matter even pending the decision by the Supreme Court.
10. Writ appeal and writ petitions are thus allowed. However, we make no order as to costs.