The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 to resolve ownership disputes and illegal possession of properties.

JUDGMENT :

As the issue involved in these appeals is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Judgment.

2. The facts in these appeals are similar and identical, therefore C.M.A.No.245 of 2023 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are referred to for convenience.

3. The impugned application in O.A No.303 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners/respondents herein under Section 83 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act”), against the respondent/appellant herein declaring that the respondent as an encroacher and also directing him to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule property, failing which liberty may be given to the 2nd applicant temple to take possession of the same, beside costs. The appellant herein is the respondent and the appellants are the petitioners in O.A.No.303 of 2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani (for short “The Tribunal”).

4. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in O.A No.303 of 2012 on the file of the Tribunal.

5. The 2nd petitioner temple Sri Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Ponnaguru village, is a religious institution and governed by the Act and it was published under Section 6(c)(ii) of A.P. Act 30/1987. As per the approved property register, OA schedule shop rooms are shown as property of the 2nd petitioner temple. The Endowments department appointed M. Veeramani as trustee to the 2nd petitioner temple to manage the same. So, one P.R.T. Rajamanikyam purchased an extent of 400 square yards of land in S.No.11/11 of Ponnaguru village, Mallanur Post, Kuppam Mandal by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4.11.1959. Consequent upon his demise, his son Ganapathi orally donated the said site to the then Trustee of 2nd petitioner temple. The said Ganapathi was also executed settlement deed dated 21.01.2012 in favour of 2nd petitioner temple on requisite stamp duty of Rs.10,780/- and registration fee of Rs.1,000/- was also paid by the 2nd petitioner temple, but the same was not yet registered, The Committee of 2nd petitioner temple formed by the villagers of Ponnaguru village leased out the O.A schedule shop rooms to the respondent on payment of Rs.250/- to Rs.400/- per month for a period of 11 months in the year 2005 and the said lease was not approved by the competent authority and it was expired in the year 2006. But the respondent is continuing therein without any valid lease, which amounts towards damages for use and occupation of the said rooms sine around two years, preceding the date of filing of the petition. The OA schedule shop rooms would fetch not less than Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1500/- per month, if they are put to public auction in regular course and therefore the respondents are liable to pay damages for use and occupation from the date of demand/receipt of legal notices, besides arrears of damages. Since the respondents are continuing in the petition schedule premises belongs to the 2nd petitioner temple without any valid extension of lease, which amounts to encroachment, as contemplated under Section 83 of Act 30/1987, the respondents herein filed O.A No303 of 2012 before the Tribunal.

6. Per contra, the respondent/appellant filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is submitted that the in the year 1959 one Sri P.R.T. Rajamanikyam had orally gifted an extent of Ac.0.8 ½ cents of land to their elders and also to some other persons and their elders in turn constructed shops with asbestos sheets and they ae in peaceful possession and enjoyment of O.A schedule properties for the past 52 years. In the year 1959 their elders alone constructed Sri Vinayaka Swamy temple with their own funds. It is further contended that they have been eking out their livelihood by running the present shops since 1980. No notices were received by them before registration of the 2nd petitioner and therefore Act 30/1987 does not apply