IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1817 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/12/2008 in WP NO : 26046 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Pydah Ratnaji Rao S/o. Sri Ramakrishna Rao R/o.H.No.36-7-3/1, Tadivari Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 Sri Pydah Chalamaiah Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam, Kakinada, East Godavari District. rep. by its founder trustee. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 3.12.2008 in W.P. No. No.26046 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant following order dated 11.11.2008 in W.P. No. 9681 of 2008 in Sri Udasin Mutt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. The appellant is in possession of property belonging to the respondent No.2, which is admittedly a religious institution. Proceedings were initiated for eviction of the appellant before respondent No.1 by the respondent No.2. By order dated 9.9.2008 in O.A. No. 112 of 2007, the respondent No.1 ordered eviction of the appellant. Questioning the said order, the appellant filed W.P. No. 26046 of 2008. The main plea of the appellant in the writ petition was that in view of the introduction of amendments to the provisions of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) by the Amendment Act 33 of 2007, the respondent No.1 ceased to have the jurisdiction and a Tribunal is constituted under the provisions of Section 162 of the Act to exercise powers which were hitherto vested in respondent No.1 including power of passing order for eviction of the encroachers. Learned Single Judge took note of the fact that similar contention was considered and rejected by this Court in Sri Udasin Mutt, supra, and dismissed the writ petition following the said order. While doing so, the learned Judge took note of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the view in Sri Udasin Mutt, supra, requires reconsideration. Sri P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the reasoning contained in the order of the learned Judge in Sri Udasin Mutt requires reconsideration. He has taken us through the provisions of Secs. 83 and 87 of the Act and argued that unlike in the case of Sec. 87 of the Act, the Legislature has not added provision such as Sub-Section (5) of Sec. 87 in Sec. 83. He submitted that since the Tribunal envisaged under the Amendment Act, is not so far constituted, the Deputy Commissioner, who is denuded of the jurisdiction to pass an order under Sec. 83 of the Act, ought not to have passed the impugned order and instead, he should have waited till such time as the Tribunal has been constituted and made over the case to the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders. We have carefully gone through the reasoning of the learned Judge in Sri Udasin Mutt and are in complete agreement with his view. Though the provision such as Sec. 87(5) is absent in respect of the proceedings falling under Sec. 83 of the Act, as rightly observed by the learned Judge, there cannot be any hiatus in respect of the proceedings initiated and pending, for eviction of the encroachers till the Tribunal is duly constituted. If the contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted, the entire proceedings under Sec. 83 of the Act will come to a standstill till constitution of the Tribunal. Certainly, that would not have been the intention of the Legislature. Having carefully considered the order of the learned Single Judge in Sri Udasin Mutt, we have no reason to differ with the reasoning contained in the said order. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition following the principle laid down in Sri Udasin Mutt. Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that though he raised contentions on merits, the same were not dealt with by the learned Judge. In view of this submission of the learned counsel, we permit the appellant to file a Review with regard to the contentions touching merits. We make it clear that the appellant is not entitled to seek review of the order to the extent of jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to pass the eviction order impugned in the writ petition. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy January 20, 2009 MAS