IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.376 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Sri Chandra Sekhara Swamy Temple, Narapunenipalli (V), Wyra Mandal, Khammam District …. Petitioner AND Mandagondi Pardhasarathi S/o. Seetharamaiah and Others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.376 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The order dated 21-10-2008 in Writ Petition No.9372 of 2008 is subjected to appeal by Sri Chandra Sekhara Swamy Temple, Narapunenipalli Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District, a third party to the writ petition. 2. The complaint of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Khammam, respondent in the writ petition, was interfering with the possession of their lands admeasuring about Acs.15-00 guntas in survey Nos.232/A, 232/E, 233/A and 233/E of Narapunenipalli Village of Khammam District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Khammam filed a counter before the learned single Judge stating that the said lands were endowed to the appellant temple and that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 had highhandedly entered into possession of the said land. 4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter, disposed of the writ petition directing that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 should be permitted to remain in possession of the land on payment of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand and five hundred only) per acre, per year, subject to enhancement by 15% every year. The said amount was directed to be credited to the account of the appellant and it was left open to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) or the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to seek a declaration under Section 87 of the Act. 5. The learned single Judge further observed that till the proceedings initiated under the said provisions were concluded, the arrangement directed by him should continue. 6. The appellant, which was not a party to the proceedings before the learned single Judge, filed the present appeal stating that it was the owner of the subject lands and that it had already put the said lands to auction on 10-8-2007. The appellant therefore disputed the entitlement of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to continue in possession as directed by the learned single Judge. 7. The appellant filed an application in WAMP No.2395 of 2009 in this appeal seeking a direction from this Court to permit it to auction the lands, pending disposal of the appeal. Upon the said application, the main appeal itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel and is accordingly being disposed of. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / writ petitioners stated that pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, his clients had paid the amounts as directed at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per acre, per year. The receipts issued by the appellant on 25-11-2008, evidencing such payment, are placed before us. 9. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Register maintained by the Endowments Department under Section 43 of the Act. Reference is made to the entries therein with regard to Narapunenipalli village and it is pointed out that only the lands in survey Nos.183 and 231 are shown to be endowed lands. The same is, however, disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who produced another version of the Section 43 Register, wherein details pertaining to the subject lands are also found. 10. In the light of the disputed questions of fact which arise, it is not possible for this Court to decide the title dispute over the subject property in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the matter would have to be decided under the provisions of the Act. 11. The stand of the appellant is that it is the owner of the subject lands, thereby denying the claim of ownership put forth by respondent Nos.1 to 4. In such view of the matter, it would be appropriate for the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Khammam, respondent No.5 herein, to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the Act as directed by the learned single Judge and decide the issue. Such proceedings shall be initiated, if not, already initiated, and shall be disposed of in due accordance with law within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties hereto shall be at liberty to adduce such evidence as is available with them to substantiate their rival claim of ownership over the subject lands. 12. It is also made clear that respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall continue, in the meanwhile, to abide by the order of the learned single Judge so far as the payment of the amount of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand and five hundred only) per acre, per year subject to enhancement at 15% per acre every year, is concerned. 13. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J November 09, 2009. KTL