THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3528 of 2010 DATE: 31-01-2011 Between: The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur .. Petitioner And Chevuri Radha Krishna and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3528 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in Appeal Suit No.426 of 2009 dated 25.02.2010. The appeal was filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur in O.A.No.42 of 2001 dated 25.08.2009 rejecting the claim of the respondents herein for declaring that Sri Yoganand Ashramam at Vinukonda is not a Public Endowment or Charitable Trust or a Religious Institution. As against that order, in the appeal, the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur has set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur; and aggrieved by the said judgment in the appeal, the present revision is filed by the Department. 2. The points for consideration are 1) whether the appeal to the District Court is maintainable; and consequently 2) whether the judgment passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur is legal and sustainable. POINT Nos. 1 & 2: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Executive Officer, Group Temples Vs. Sri Sakhiya Matt, Srikakulam[1], wherein by considering the amended provisions under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [“the Endowments Act” for brevity] under Section 87 of the Endowments Act, this Court held that no appeal lies to the District Court and the appeal lies only to the High Court. In this case also, the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur was passed on 25.08.2009, after the amendment of Section 87 of the Endowments Act. As per the provisions of Section 87 of the Endowments Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments shall discharge the functions till a Tribunal is constituted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the constitution of the Tribunal is not disclosed and, therefore, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur are appealable only to the District Court. 5. It is needless to say that under the amended Endowments Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments will be discharging the duties as a Tribunal till constitution of the Tribunal. Therefore, whatever orders that are passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, shall be deemed to be orders passed by the Tribunal and consequently an appeal lies only to the High Court, as provided under the Statute and the decision referred to above. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the appeal to the District Court is not maintainable. Any order or judgment passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents represents that he may be permitted to present an appeal to the High Court on the basis of the record available with the respondents by granting some time. 8. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur is directed to return the original papers of appeal to the respondents herein and the respondents are directed to submit the same within a period of 30 days from the date of return of the papers. If there is any provision, the respondents can also file an appeal before this Court within 30 days even without the original order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, which was challenged. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in A.S.No.426 of 2009 dated 25.02.2010. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 31st January, 2011 Note: Issue cc in one week. B/o. MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3528 of 2010 DATE: 31-01-2011 MR [1] 2010(5) ALD 739