THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14417 of 2011 BETWEEN: 1. Smt. M. Pushpavathi, and another …. PETITIONER And 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: G.P. for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V.T.M. Prasad The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No.1 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and with the consent of all the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. In view of the short relief seeking extension of time for vacating the premises in pursuance of the impugned order dated 4.02.2011 in O.A.No.2181 of 2010 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, the matter need not be considered in extenso. The petitioners are the tenants of the 2nd respondent temple in respect of an extent of 2314 Sq. yards of land situated in Rs.No.7673 of Kakinada, East Godavari District. The grandfather of the 2nd petitioner obtained lease of the subject land in the year 1969 and set up a saw mill under the name and style of Sri Surya Saw Mill. The lease expired by 31.08.2003 and the same was not extended thereafter. At the instance of the 2nd respondent-temple, the 1st respondent, viz., Assistant Commissioner Endowments submitted proposals under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1987 seeking eviction of the petitioners. On consideration of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal held that the lease was not extended beyond 31.08.2003 and hence the petitioners are in occupation of the premises as encroachers. The Tribunal allowed the O.A by orders dated 4.02.2011 directing the petitioners to vacate and handover the premises within one month, in default permitting the 1st respondent to get them evict with police aid. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the impugned order in so far as the merits are concerned. The only grievance presented is that the time granted by the Tribunal to vacate the premises is too short. The learned counsel submits that the saw mill has been in existence with suitable buildings and sheds for over 40 years and that the petitioners are dependent on the business for their livelihood. In order to remove the machinery and relocate the mill, it is difficult to search for an alternative land within the short time granted by the Tribunal. The nature of business requires minimum one year time for its relocation. The learned Standing Counsel opposes granting one year, but concedes for granting reasonable time subject to the petitioners paying the rents regularly and delivering vacant possession. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are running a saw mill on the subject premises. Indisputably the petitioners are dependent on the business for their livelihood. As saw mill being a polluting industry, it is not easy to secure alternative land for its relocation. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for reasonable time. In the circumstances, the following order is passed. 1. The time for vacating the premises is extended till 31.12.2011. 2. The petitioners shall vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to respondent No.2 on or before the said date. 3. The petitioners shall continue to pay the rents regularly without any default. 4. The petitioners shall file an undertaking incorporating the conditions 1 to 3 above, before the respondents within two weeks from today in default of any of these conditions the respondents shall be at liberty to evict the petitioners as per the directions of the Tribunal. Save as above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th June, 2011 Note: C.C. tomorrow. (b/O) Js