IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:19689 of 2008 Between: 1 Mulakalapalli Prabhakar S/o.Linga Murty R/o.11-25-156, Kothawada, Warangal. 2 Nippani Satyanarayana S/o.Kashaiah R/o.6-65, Parkal Village & Mandal, Warangal District. 3 Samarthi Suraiah S/o.Buchaiah R/o.11-25-151/B, Matwada, Warangal Town. 4 Hamsa Laxminarayana S/o.Peddulu R/o.11-25-151/B, Matwada, Warangal Town. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Dept., NZ.III, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal. 5 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal Zone, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 16.06.2008 passed by respondent No.3 in R.P.No.17 of 2003 whereby he conﬁrmed order, dated 31.03.2002 passed by respondent No.5 in O.A.No.39 of 2002. Heard Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments. A perusal of the record shows that against order, dated 31.03.2002 passed by respondent No.5 under Section 83(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners ﬁled revision petition, which was taken on ﬁle as R.P.No.17 of 2003 by respondent No.3, who in turn rejected the same vide his order, dated 16.06.2008 on the ground that under the un-amended Section 84(2) of the Act, the petitioners have the remedy of ﬁling a civil suit to establish that the charitable and religious institution or endowment has no title to the land or building or space in respect of which the order of eviction is passed. Questioning this order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. In my considered opinion, respondent No.3 has not committed any error of jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the revision petition on the ground that the statute provides for an eﬀective remedy of instituting the suit in the competent Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that under the un-amended Section 84(2) of the Act, the civil suit to be ﬁled by the aggrieved party shall not be taken cognizance of, by the Civil Court, if the same is instituted after six months of the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 83(4) of the Act. He submitted that as the petitioners were bona fide pursuing the revision petition before respondent No.3, they could not ﬁle the civil suit within the period of limitation and respondent No.3, while refusing to adjudicate the revision petition on merits, ought to have permitted the petitioners to ﬁle the civil suit within a reasonable time. I ﬁnd force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As the petitioners were bona ﬁde litigating before respondent No.3 by invoking the statutory remedy of revision, they are entitled to ﬁle the civil suit. The petitioners’ request for enlargement of period of limitation for ﬁling civil suit is reasonable. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of by permitting the petitioners to ﬁle civil suit under Section 84(2) of the Act as it stood prior to it’s amendment by Act 33 of 2007, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. If the petitioners ﬁle the civil suit within the abovementioned time, the competent Civil Court shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.25705 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th SEPTEMBER, 2008. Note: issue copy in one (1) week. B/o kvni