Common Judgment:

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the common award in O.A. Nos.3015, 3008, 3007, 3006, 3017, 3018, 3014, 3011, 3016, 3023, 3022, 3024, 3013, 3020, 3026, 3025, 3019, 3012, 3010, 3021 of 2010 respectively dated 25-06-2012 passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the respondents were held to be “encroachers” under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”).

2. The respective appellants in these appeals are the respondents, and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are applicant Nos.1 and 2 - the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Karimnagar and Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Challur,respectively, in the O.As. before the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. However, applicant No.2, which is “Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple” will be referred to as “Temple”.

4. Since the subject matter in all these appeals is one and the same i.e., relating to the land around the Temple, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The case of the Temple before the Tribunal is that the respective premises of different extents, which are under the occupation of the respondents, out of 5499 sq. ft. (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “schedule property”) situated around the compound wall of the Temple at Challur Village, Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District belongs to it and that the respondents have been continuing in the schedule property unauthorisedly without any valid lease or orders of extension of the same from the competent authority and without even paying any amounts towards damages for use and occupation of the same and thus they are squatting over the schedule property and failed to vacate the same despite issuance of legal notices, as such, they are “encroachers” within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act. If the schedule property is leased out as per the Rules, it will fetch huge amounts. Therefore, the Temple sought for a direction from the Tribunal in all the O.As. for eviction of the respective respondents from the premises of the schedule property which are under their unauthorised occupation and handover vacant possession of the same to it.

6. Except the case of the respondent in C.M.A. No.799 of 2012 arising out of O.A. No.3026 of 2010, the case of all other respondents is similar and on same footing.

7. All the respondents in other O.As. filed their respective counters denying the averments made in the respective applications against them including the allegation that they encroached the schedule property belonging to the Temple. Their case is that they made construction in their occupied sites (schedule property) in Abadi Grama Kantam about 20 - 25 years back with the permission of Gram Panchayat, Challur and the Gram Panchayat allotted shop numbers also to their premises and issued certificates of ownership to them. The respondents also obtained electricity connection and eking out their livelihood by doing business in the schedule property and they have been paying taxes to the Gram Panchayat. The respondents are enjoying the schedule property for the last 25 years and thus they have perfected their title by adverse possession also. It is also stated that around the Temple, compound wall was existing from 100 years back and the schedule property, which is in occupation of the respondents, is far away from the said compound wall. Thus, the question of respondents encroaching the schedule property does not arise.

8. The respondent in O.A. No.3026 of 2010 filed his counter denying the averments made in the application against him including the allegation that he encroached the site in his occupation covered by the schedule property belonging to the Temple. His case is that the site in his occupation, which is in Survey No.1005/A, was purchased by him about 22 years back under a simple sale deed from its