COMMON JUDGMENT:

The batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 11.04.2017 passed in various O.As by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani (in short “the tribunal’), whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the appellants herein to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month to the respondent/ temple, removing structures therein and further directed the Station House Officer, Anantapur Mandal Police Station to provide necessary police-aid in implementation of the said orders, on requisition, in the event of failure of the appellant to comply with the orders and costs.

2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, I find it expedient to decide these matters by a Common Judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, C.M.A.No.1087 of 2017 is taken into consideration as a leading case. The appellants herein are the respondents and respondents herein are the petitioners before the tribunal.

4. The claim of the respondents/ petitioners before the tribunal is that appellants herein each occupied the land in

2 Dr.KMR, J Sy.No.85 of Kukkalapalli Revenue Village in the year 2006 and they were erected sheds therein. The respondents herein with the help of police, they were removed. The encroachers are belonging political parties and they are not vacating the subject property, inspite of several notices. Therefore 1st respondent submitted reports in each case to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool for initiating proceedings under Section 83 of Act, 30 of 1987. Therefore the batch of O.As came to be filed by the appellants individually.

5. The respondents herein, who are petitioners before the tribunal has filed counter and contended that the appellants are in physical possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac. 0.02 cents in each case in Sy.No. 85 of Kakkalapalli Panchayat, Rudrampet Village, Ananthapur Mandal and they are landless poor and working as coolies and they do not have any other land or house and the same was allotted by the Revenue Authorities and issued residential certificates by the Tahsildar, Anantapur Mandal. The appellants have obtained loan from A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited and the District Collector, Ananthapur also allotted houses to them under INDIRAMMA Housing Scheme in the year 2009. The appellants have also constructed pucca houses by obtaining loans and

3 Dr.KMR, J living therein along with their families. Therefore requested to dismiss the O.As.

6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of respondents/ petitioners examined PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and on behalf of appellants/petitioners RWs 1 to 10 were examined and Ex.R1 to 60 documents were marked.

7. Learned tribunal has framed the following point for determination viz., “1. Whether the 2nd petitioner temple is owner of the schedule property and the respondent is an encroacher of the same U/s

83 of Act, 30/1987, and if so, liable to be evicted?

2. To what result?

8. After hearing on both the sides, the learned tribunal directed the appellants herein to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month to the respondent herein by removing superstructures therein and also granted police aid to the respondent herein for compliance of the impugned order of the learned tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the present batch of C.M.As came to be filed.

4 Dr.KMR, J

9. Heard Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments for the respondents.

10. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned tribunal without appreciating the counter and material on record has simply directed the appellants herein to vacate and handover the possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent herein, ignoring the well settled prin