THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30848 of 2011 Date: 23.11.2011 Between: Gudemetla Koteswara Rao … Petitioner and The Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30848 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The order dated 01.10.2011 in O.A.No.13 of 2011 passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner was granted lease for a period of one year pursuant to the public auction conducted on 13.5.2009 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.3-20 cents situated at Damarapalli Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District, belonging to the 3rd respondent-Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple. Even though the lease expired, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the subject premises without extension of lease. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, therefore, issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to vacate and handover possession of the subject premises. As the petitioner failed to do so, proceedings were initiated for his eviction under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity “the Act”) by filing O.A.No.13 of 2011 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad. Even though the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal through an Advocate, did not contest the matter by filing counter and adducing evidence. Therefore, on a consideration of the evidence adduced by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Tribunal reached a conclusion that after the expiry of the lease, the petitioner continued to be in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises as an encroacher and accordingly allowed the O.A. by order dated 01.10.2011 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within one month. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be considered as an encroacher since he paid the lease amount for the succeeding year even after expiry of the lease period. It is further contended that there was no notice issued as per Rule 5 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for brevity “the Rules”) issued in G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endo.I), dated 11.3.2003 calling upon the petitioner to handover possession of the subject premises, therefore, the impugned order is not legal and valid. 5. The said contention of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. Section 83 of the Act, which has been invoked by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for eviction of the petitioner, unequivocally empowers the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur to lay a report before the Tribunal seeking eviction of an encroacher. The Tribunal, on a perusal of such report, shall conduct an enquiry in the manner prescribed, after notice to the parties, and pass appropriate orders. 6. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the manner prescribed under Section 83 of the Act and the Tribunal decided the matter after due notice to the petitioner. As noticed above, the petitioner although initially appeared before the Tribunal through an Advocate, did not voluntarily participate in the other proceedings. He did not think it fit even to deny the pleadings in the O.A. by filing a counter. Further, the Tribunal noticed that registered notices were issued to the petitioner on two occasions, wherein he was asked to handover possession of the subject premises. Therefore, it is not permissible for the petitioner to contend that he has no notice of his eviction. 7. It is apt to refer Explanation to Section 83 of the Act, which is as under: “Explanation:- For the purpose of this Chapter the expression ‘encroacher’ shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it.” 8. In view of the above, in the absence of any approval from the competent authority, since the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the subject premises without any extension of lease, the Tribunal has rightly held the petitioner as an encroacher and passed the impugned order. 9. It may be mentioned that Rule 5 of the Rules, which relates to service of notice on a cultivating tenant, does not per se apply to the petitioner, who is only a lessee for one year in pursuance of a public auction. Thus, the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant facts while passing the impugned order. 10. At this juncture, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that in pursuance of the impugned order of the Tribunal, possession has been duly taken from the petitioner under panchanama dated 16.11.2011 in the presence of the Village Revenue Officer, Inspector of Endowments Department and other police officials. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is absolutely devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 23.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30848 of 2011 23.11.2011 (Msr)