The Endowments Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complex questions of title during summary eviction proceedings under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987; such disputes must be determined by a competent Civil Court after a full-fledged trial.

JUDGMENT :

V.Sujatha, J.

All these appeals have been filed by similarly situated persons against whom, the A.P. Endowments Tribunal has passed individual orders directing them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition scheduled property. In all these appeals, the appellants are occupants/residents of various extents of land mentioned in the respective petition schedule property and the respondent in all these cases is a trust/temple which has initially filed an application before the Tribunal seeking eviction of the appellants from the petition schedule property. Hence, this Court feels it appropriate to decide all these appeals by way of this common judgment, by narrating the facts as in C.M.A.No.163 of 2020.

2) C.M.A.No.163 of 2020 is filed by the appellants/respondents under Section 88 of the A.P. Charitable Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 challenging the order dated 23.12.2019 passed in O.A.No.129 of 2007 by the Member, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, whereby, the Tribunal allowed the petition directing appellant No.2/respondent No.2 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition scheduled property.

3) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred as petitioner and respondents, as arrayed before the Tribunal in O.A.No.129 of 2007.

4) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner trust is a Public Charitable Institution published under Section 6 (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “Act 30 of 1987”). The provisions of the above Act and Rules framed thereunder govern the administration and management of the subject temple. The petitioner trust is the absolute owner of the agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.1.36 cents in T.S.No.361/1B of Vizianagaram District. All the revenue and endowments records clearly show that the land belongs to the subject temple. The respondent is in unauthorised occupation of the petition schedule land without any approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or license whatsoever. The respondent has raised unauthorised constructions with a malafide intention to grab the valuable land belonging to the subject institution and he is not paying any amount to the institution for his/her use and occupation. In spite of several demands made by the petitioner, the respondent did not vacate the scheduled property. Hence, the present O.A. has been filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam against the respondent under Section 83 (1) of the Act 30 of 1987 seeking eviction of respondent No.2 from the petition schedule property.

5) Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the material averments and contended that his father is the absolute owner of the property as per the settlement adangal and the revenue records of Vizianagaram Mandal Revenue Office. The part of the property was acquired by the Government after due enquiry by the land acquisition officer-cum-Deputy Collector, VUDA, Visakhapatnam as per the award dated 10.03.1986 in Award No.04/1986.Subsequently, the District Collector, Vizianagaram also issued a notice dated 29.11.1990 for acquisition to the mother of the respondent in respect of some more part of the property, in which the petitioner is also a party, and the same is also reflected in the Municipal Town Survey extract of Vizianagaram Municipality. The respondent has been enjoying the same without any hindrance from anybody and it is known to all the villagers including the petitioner. Thus, the respondent and his predecessors have got right, title interest and enjoyment for the last several decades. Further, the title of a party cannot be decided in such summary procedure, more so, when the Civil Courts got jurisdiction to decide the question of title, as such the subject matter will not come under the purview of the Tribunal and requested to dismiss the petition.

6)