The Deputy Commissioner is not empowered to decide disputes after the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 24.05.2010 in O.A.No.172 of 2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam, the appellant/respondent preferred this Appeal questioning the correctness of the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent is the petitioner, who filed the O.A.No.172 of 2009 to initiate enquiry under section 83(2) of the Act 30/87 against the appellant for eviction from the petition schedule property.

2. The parties are referred to as per their array before the Deputy Commissioner “for brevity”.

3. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent is in occupation of the agricultural land i.e., petition mentioned property to an extent of Ac.44.4 Sq. Yards (28.6 X 14) situated in T.S.No.709, Block No.29, Ward No.16, Assam gardens, Visakhapatnam belonging to the temple, without any approval from the competent Authority under the Endowments Act. The respondent is not vacating the petition schedule property in spite of several demands made by the petitioner. The respondent’s actions are detrimental to the interests of the temple.

4. In spite of issuance of notice to the respondent, he failed to file counter though several opportunities were given. As such, filing of counter of respondent was forfeited.

5. Based on the pleadings before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner framed appropriate points for consideration. On behalf of the petitioner, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 documents got marked. On behalf of the respondent, no documents got marked.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Deputy Commissioner held that the respondent is the encroacher of the petition schedule property within the meaning of section 83 of Act 30/87 and directed the respondent to be evicted from the scheduled property.

7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel representing both sides.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent contends that the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is the routine cyclostyle order without appreciating the contentions raised by the respondent in its proper perspective. The Order is without jurisdiction and is passed after the constitution of the Tribunal.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner supported the findings and observations of the Deputy Commissioner.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction?

11. The Deputy Commissioner initiated enquiry under Section 83(2) of the Act 30/87 against the respondent for eviction from the scheduled property based on the proposal made by Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam, informing that the respondent has been in unauthorized occupation of the petition schedule property and recommended to initiate proceedings under section 83 of Act 30/87. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 24.05.2010 holding that the respondent is an encroacher of the scheduled property within the meaning of Section 83 of Act 30/87. The respondent is directed to be evicted from the scheduled property and vacate the scheduled property, and hand over the vacant possession to the petitioner/institution within 15 days from receipt of the Order.

12. The main grievance of the appellant against the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is that the Order dated 24.05.2010 was passed after the constitution of the Tribunal without jurisdiction. For better appreciation, I reproduce the G.O.Ms.837, dated 13.08.2009.

13. G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.08.2009 issued by Revenue (Endowments Department), reads as under:

“In exercise of the powers conferred under section 162(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby constitute the A.P. Endowment Tribunal sitting at Hyderabad. The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for the determination of any disputes, question or the mat