ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, as well as Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. Sri S.Venkata Ramana, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, who is representing respondent Nos.1 and, 3 submits that respondent Nos.1 and

3 are only formal parties.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the Court to set aside the order that is rendered by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No.214 of 2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2010 in O.A.No.579 of 2010, dated 11.8.2023 and to issue an appropriate direction to respondent No.1 i.e., Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad to take on record the subsequent material factual aspects as set out in the additional affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.214 of 2023.

3. Giving details with regard to the chronology of events, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner entered into a lease agreement with respondent No.2-Mutt with regard to the subject property. Subsequently, an application was filed by respondent No.2- Mutt vide O.A.No.579 of 2010 before respondent No.1 i.e., Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad for eviction of the subject lands. O.A.No.579 of 2010 was allowed by order dated 17.9.2011. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the writ petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition vide Writ Petition No.31893 of 2011 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. While O.A.No.579 of 2010 was pending before respondent No.1 i.e., Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.2 of 2010 was filed by respondent No.2-Mutt claiming Use and Occupation charges. However, the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad did not consider the said request. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2-Mutt filed another Writ Petition before the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide Writ Petition No.8005 of 2012. The High Court disposed of both the Writ Petitions i.e., Writ Petition No.31893 of 2011 and 8005 of 2012 through common order on 07.3.2013. So far as the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.2 of 2010 is concerned, the said order was set aside and the said interlocutory application was remitted back to respondent No.1 i.e., Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad for fresh consideration and adjudication. Learned senior counsel submits that the order that was rendered by the High Court was carried in Appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal Nos.7759, 7760 and 7761 of 2014 and those Civil Appeals were decided on 13.9.2022. However, no orders were passed regarding the observations made by the High Court so far as I.A.No.2 of 2010 are concerned. Thus, the order that was passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh remitting back I.A.No.2 of 2010 to the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad for fresh consideration and adjudication attained finality.

4. Now, arguing with regard to the merits of the matter, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner submits that after I.A.No.2 of 2010 was remitted back to respondent No.1 i.e., Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, the writ petitioner filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.214 of 2023 seeking the Tribunal to receive the additional counter filed by it. However, the Tribunal through orders dated

11.8.2023 dismissed the said interlocutory application and aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned senior counsel further contends that substantial amount was paid during the pendency of I.A.No.2 of 2010 towards Use and Occupation charges and certain amount was attempted to be paid which was refused by respondent No.2-Mutt. Learned senior counsel contends that to bring to the notice of the Tribunal those happenings and subsequent events, narrating all the facts, additional counter was filed and a request w