The absence of a valid lease in the petitioner's name negates his claims to occupancy and challenges to eviction; eviction procedures under the Endowments Act must be strictly followed.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

The petitioner challenges the interference of respondent No.5-Executive Officer of the Temple, with the tenement (Municipal No. 19- 4-367, 3433 sq. yards) at Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

2. Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case at hand, so far as relevant for the purpose of this writ petition can be stated as follows :

4. The subject property i.e., Municipal No. 19-4-367 (3433 sq.yards/2929.98 sq. meters) at Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, was originally leased to the petitioner's father, Sri Sita Ram Heda, by Respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 24.11.1980 at Rs. 500/month, and thereafter the rent was enhanced from time to time, which was being paid regularly without default. In 2015, construction of storeroom, staff room, and gate was permitted, with rent raised to Rs. 25,000/month. Initially, the petitioner's father ran M/s. Pawan Parking Place. Post-2015, he ran M/s. Heda Associates, dealing in Iron, Steel, MTS Bars, and Cement. The petitioner proposed extending the premises from 80 x 60 to 100 x 80 feet, offering an additional Rs.10,000/month, but received no response.

Instead, a Caution Notice was placed on the Gate on 05.11.2020, claiming the ownership of temple and prohibiting vehicle entry. The petitioner's father died on 10.12.2020, and the petitioner continues the business in the subject premises. Respondent No.5 issued a Final Notice on 19.02.2021 (served on 20.02.2021), demanding vacation of premises within 7 days. The petitioner asserts that Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987, grants jurisdiction to the Assistant Commissioner to act against encroachers, either suo motu or upon complaint from the Trustee.

Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Telangana High Court in K. Ranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [ 2020 (5) ALT 187 ], which followed the Division Bench’s Order in Writ Petitions No. 34361, 39013, and 39151 of 2016. The court held that encroachment cases must be reported to the Endowments Tribunal, which must issue Notice and hear the alleged encroacher before passing orders for removal of alleged encroachment in accordance with Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987. Due to threats of dispossession by Respondent No. 5, the petitioner filed WP No. 4572/2021, which was disposed of on 04.03.2021. The court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2^nd respondent-Endowment Commissioner, with supporting documents. The Commissioner was directed to verify records, hear both parties, and pass a comprehensive order within four weeks. The petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No. 2 on 16.03.2021. A notice was issued on 09.08.2021, scheduling a meeting on 21.08.2021. The petitioner attended the meeting, and the matter was reserved for orders. Respondent No. 5 collected rent up to July 2021 on 20.08.2021. On 27.08.2021, at around 9:15 PM, Respondent No.5, along with 10-12 persons and a JCB vehicle (No. AP20Q 4082), removed some vehicles from the petitioner’s parking area without notice. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Bahadurpura.

5. Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that the actions of respondent No. 5 violate the statutory provision under Section 83 of the Act which mandates