Individual eligibility, not association-wide holdings, governs welfare benefit claims for cultivating tenants under Section 82(2).

Eligibility under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 must be assessed by reference to the individual landholding and income of the actual cultivating tenants, not by treating a registered society as a single composite unit. A society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a separate juristic person for this purpose, so certificates showing the members' individual holdings remain relevant. Prior final findings recognizing the petitioner as successor to the original lessee also meant the claim could not be rejected merely for want of a valid lease. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration of the members' separate eligibility.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner sangham, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was required to be tested as a unit or whether the individual holdings and income of its members had to be considered for claiming the benefit of Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987; (ii) whether the petitioner was disentitled to relief on the ground that there was no valid lease in its favour and that it did not satisfy the conditions for recognition as landless poor cultivating tenants under Section 82.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner sangham, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was required to be tested as a unit or whether the individual holdings and income of its members had to be considered for claiming the benefit of Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987

Analysis: A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a body corporate with a distinct legal personality for all purposes. The material provisions of Section 82(2) of the Endowments Act are directed to the individual landholder or cultivating tenant who answers the description of a landless poor person or small and marginal farmer. The statutory language, especially the definition of such person in the Explanation, focuses on the land holding and income of a person, not of an association as a composite unit. Since the petitioner sangham could not own property in its own name as a separate juristic person, the authorities were bound to examine the eligibility of the actual members who were the cultivating tenants. The certificates produced by the petitioner concerning the individual landholdings of its members were relevant and could not be disregarded merely because the members had formed an association.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be assessed as a single unit for deciding eligibility under Section 82(2); the individual members had to be considered, and the contrary finding was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was disentitled to relief on the ground that there was no valid lease in its favour and that it did not satisfy the conditions for recognition as landless poor cultivating tenants under Section 82

Analysis: The prior civil and tenancy findings, which had attained finality, recognized the petitioner as the successor of the earlier sangham and negatived the allegation of a sub-lease. In the light of the then prevailing tenancy regime, the original lease was to be treated as continuing, and the authorities could not ignore the binding findings that the petitioner stood in the shoes of the original lessee. The rejection on the premise that no valid lease existed in the petitioner's favour was therefore incorrect. Once the members were treated individually, the question under Section 82 had to be examined against their personal landholdings and income as on the relevant cut-off date, not against the aggregate holding of the association.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not disentitled on the ground of absence of a valid lease, and the adverse orders rejecting its claim under Section 82 could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The rejection orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the members' individual eligibility under Section 82(2), with interim arrangements continued in the meantime.

Ratio Decidendi: For a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which has no separate juristic personality for all purposes, eligibility for a welfare benefit tied to landholding and income must be determined by examining the individual members who are the actual cultivating tenants, not by treating the association as a single landholding unit.

---