IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 12968 OF 2010 Between: Venishetti Prakash ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakinta, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12968 OF 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 4 to release the premises No.3-2-37, Vishweshwara Swamy Temple, Jammikunta village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, which was seized on 17.05.2010 and deliver the possession to the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The petitioner states that the premises in question was let out to him and that he continued in possession for the past more than 30 years on payment of rents. The premises admittedly belongs to 4th respondent temple. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 17.05.2010, when he was out of station, in his absence, the premises was locked by the respondents and he was not allowed even to take the valuables and personal belongings from the premises. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent- Temple has placed before this Court a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Warangal Zone in O.A.No.174 of 2006 dated 15.12.2007 holding that the petitioner herein had no manner of right to continue in possession of the premises in question and directing him to deliver vacant possession to the temple within 10 days. It is an order passed under Section 84(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) holding that the petitioner herein was an encroacher as defined in the explanation to Section 83 (1) of the Act. The fact that the said order became final could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the specific case of the 4th respondent that pursuant to the said order dated 15.12.2007 notices were issued to the petitioner along with eight similarly situated persons and ultimately possession was taken on 17.05.2010 following due process of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the eviction order passed by the competent authority under Section 84(1) of the Act has become final, I do not find any justifiable reason to issue the mandamus as prayed for. However, having regard to the petitioner’s plea that his furniture, other articles and personal belongings remained in the premises, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to remove his personal belongings and other items, if any, under a proper acknowledgment. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 14.06.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd