ORDER :

M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. This Civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the order of AP. Endowments Tribunal in O.A. No. 01 of 2006, dated 30.05.2019.

2. The appellant is the second respondent, the first respondent is the petitioner and whereas the second respondent is the first respondent in O.A. No. 01 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani.

3. The first respondent is a public religious temple notified under Section 6 (c) (ii) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'Act 30 of 1987'). This temple has several properties including the disputed dry land covering an extent of Ac. 1.82½ cents in S. No. 63/1 at Gudilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It was stated in the application by the first respondent-temple, filed under Section 83 (1) of Act 30 of 1987, that the appellant had encroached upon the above land and being in illegal occupation, has been running a brick industry there, without approval from any competent authority. Thus, it was claimed that there has been a change in the use of the land adversely affecting its fertility. Claiming further that the appellant failed to pay damages, which would have brought otherwise, not less than Rs. 25,000/- per annum, the above application was presented, requiring eviction of the appellant there from.

4. Opposing the above application the appellant filed a counter stating that he filed O.S. No. 384 of 2006 against the first respondent-temple for declaration of right and title to the land in dispute, now pending on the file of the Court of leaned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein a temporary injunction was granted in his favour and against the first respondent-temple restraining the respondent-temple not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of this land during pendency of the suit. The appellant further claimed in the counter that, he had purchased this land for valuable consideration on 19.08.1999 from the father of the second respondent, viz., Sri Danthuluri Sanyasi Suryanarayana Gajapathi Raju, under a registered sale deed and since then he has been in effective possession and enjoyment of this land. Subsequent to his purchase, he constructed a asbestos sheet house in the said disputed land, got dug an open well and after obtaining necessary permissions from competent authorities for industrial purpose, he gave the said land to a Brick Industry, viz., Surendra Bricks, Gudilova on lease. It is further stated that he received a notice dated 20.08.2005 from the first respondent-temple demanding to vacate entire extent of Ac. 3.65 cents in Sy. No. 63/1 within a week and that he had sent a suitable reply dated 31.08.2005 to it. He also states that on 08.01.2006 and 09.01.2006 during pendency of O.A., officers of the first respondent-temple came up on the above land and caused damage to certain extent though protested by the labourers working in the brick industry, who left the place after verifying the title deeds, pattadar pass books and other documents shown by the appellant, openly threatening to remove all the constructions. Thus, he asserted his right, title and interest to this land while denying the claim of the first respondent-temple.

5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the respondents are encroachers U/section 83 of Act 30/1987, if so, liable to be evicted?

2. To what relief?

6. Before the Endowments Tribunal, the Manager of the first respondent-temple examined himself as P.W. 1 and Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.7 were marked. The appellant examined himself as R.W. 1 while relying on Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.20 in support of his contention.

7. On the material, the Tribunal observed while considering Issue No. 1, that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of genuine nature in respect of the entries in register maintained U/section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987 and considering the effect of Section 81 as well as Secti