THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NOS : 17698, 17699, 17292, 17293 AND 17697 of 2005 Between: S.Vasantha Reddy Petitioner AND The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Departments, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others Respondents Oral order: These writ petitions are by the several petitioners, aggrieved orders passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad, all dated 25-5-2005 rejecting revisions filed by the petitioner and confirming orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad dated 27-1-2004 whereby the petitioners were declared as encroachers and were ordered to be evicted while restoring possession of the properties to Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple, Devar Yamzal village, Ranga Reddy District, exercising powers under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). The factual profile as presented in W.P.No. 17698 of 2006 is illustrative of and substantially similar to the facts in the other writ petitions as well. W.P.No. 17698 of 2005: (a) the writ petition is against the order of the 1st respondent dated 25-5-2005 in R.P.No. 321 of 2004 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 27-1-2004 in O.A.No. 97 of 1999 declaring the petitioner as encroacher; directing his eviction from the schedule property; and directing restoration of the property in favour of Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple, Devar Yamzal; (b) the proceedings were triggered by the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District submitted under the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act stating that there were illegal occupants on the land belonging to the Devasthanam in Sy.Nos. 688 to 712 and 716 of Devar Yamzal admeasuring Ac.400-37 guntas; that these encroachers have not been paid any lease amounts to the Devasthanam; and that legal notices issued to the encroachers to vacate the properties had not yielded any result. (c) Pursuant to the report of the Assistant Commissioner, a notice under Section 83 (2) of the Act was issued. The petitioner filed a counter (in O.A.No. 96 of 1999) denying the title of the temple and claimed that he had purchased an extent of Ac.9-01 guntas in Sy.No. 690/1 and another extent of Ac.8-38 guntas in Sy.No. 690/2 from the pattadar Sri Chintala Ramamohana Reddy through three separate sale deeds dated 10-4-1991, 11-4-1991 and 15-4-1991; that Ch.Ramamohana Reddy had purchased the said property from the original pattadar Sri Seetharama Reddy through a registered sale deed dated 8-8-1953 and another extent of Ac.3-00 in Sy.No. 699 through a registered sale deed dated 6-9-1985; that the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet vide proceedings dated 29-5-1992; that from the date of such purchase, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment; and therefore is thus entitled to title to the property by adverse possession as well; and (d) the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam while denying the claim of the writ petitioner asserted per contra that the schedule property belongs to the Devasthanam; that the D.R.O by an order dated 12-7-1990 had restored the name of the temple in the revenue records; that in the pahani for the year 1924-25 Ac. 881-31 guntas were shown as temple land but subsequently illegal transfers were effected and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 269 dated 14-3-1996 declaring that the land of an extent of Ac.881-31 guntas belonged to Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple, Devar Yemzal; and that therefore the petitioners herein-the respondent in the O.A. was an encroacher and in illegal possession of the Devasthanam’s land and thus liable to be evicted in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Act. The learned primary authority, the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 27-1-2004 without a proper analysis of the relevant records, reproduced the contentions advanced on behalf of the Devasthanam and recorded ipsi dixit findings that during the years 1938 to 1953 the revenue records were manipulated and in the place of temple’s name in the pattadar column, names of different persons were entered in the revenue records without authority; that on the basis of such illegal entries in the revenue records several sale transactions occurred, which are invalid under the provisions of the Act; that on a complaint made by ryots of Devar Yemzal, the Sub-Collector, Hyderabad East Division sent a report to the D.R.O. regarding illegal transfers of temple lands in the name of certain landlords with the connivance of the then Patwari; that the D.R.O., Ranga Reddy District in his proceedings dated 12-7-1990 ordered restoration of the name of the temple in the pahani from the year 1952 in respect of the lands covered by Sy.Nos. 688 to 712 and 716 of Devar Yemzal of an extent of Ac.400-37 guntas; that thereafter the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 269, Revenue Department, dated 14-3-1996 for resumption of the Devasthanam land and directed eviction of illegal occupants; that the respondent (the writ petitioner herein) could not substantiate that he is not an encroacher; and therefore the writ petitioner was an encroacher and his eviction from the land should follow. It requires to be noticed that the D.R.O., Ranga Reddy District by an order dated 12-7-1990, which is the substantive basis for the orders dated 27-1-2004 in the several O.As, had declared that the property in Sy.Nos. 688 to 712 and 716 of Devar Yemzal village is property belonging to Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple and therefore the name of the existing persons since 1952 up to date should be deleted. Aggrieved thereby, the predecessors in title and the vendor of the petitioners filed W.P.No. 1283 of 1997 specifically challenging the order of the D.R.O. dated 12-7-1990 on the ground that the order was passed without notice to the affected parties including the writ petitioners. This Court by the judgment dated 26-11-2004 set aside the order of the D.R.O. dated 12-7-1990 in so far as it pertained to the petitioners and remanded the matter to the D.R.O. to treat the same as the proceedings under Section 166(b) of the A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. In the light of the declaration of nullity of the D.R.O’s. proceedings dated 12-7-1990, the reliance by the Deputy Commissioner on this instrument is fundamentally misconceived, though the judgment of the High Court was later. In so far as G.O.Ms.No. 269, Revenue Department, dated 14-3-1996 is concerned (the other instrument on which substantive reliance is placed by the Deputy Commissioner for the order of eviction), in respect of the lands in question, the State Government merely stated that action should be taken to invoke provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 read with the provisions of the Endowments Act for ensuring recovery of possession of these lands to the Devasthanam. This is an order passed by the State in exercise of general executive power directing appropriate and expeditious action by other statutory authorities. This order is per se incapable of constituting a declaration of title nor does it purport to do so. G.O.Ms.No.269 is irrelevant in determining whether the title and ownership of the property vests in the temple or with the petitioner herein. Reliance on this instrument (G.O.Ms.No. 269) is placed by the primary authority in support of the conclusion that the petitioners herein are the encroachers is mischievous. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 27-1- 2004, the petitioners preferred revisions (R.P.No. 321 of 2004 and other R.Ps.) to the Regional Joint Commissioner under Section 92 of the Act. These revisions were dismissed by similar orders dated 25-5- 2005 and these orders present a classic case of abdication of revisional responsibility. To the extent and material, the operative portion of the similar revisional orders read: “I have perused the material papers as well as the connected file in O.A.No. 96/99 of the Dy.Commissioner. The petitioner has not filed any documents excepting the registered sale deed through which he purchased the scheduled property on 10-4-1991, 11-4-1991 and 15-4-1991. The impugned order dated 27-1-04 is self explanatory. The Dy. Commissioner has taken into cognizance the entries in the revenue records as well as the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No. 269 Revenue (SS) Department dt. 14-3-96 as well as the order of the Dist. Revenue Officer, R.R. Dist. in his Rc.No. B/15043/77. dt. 12-7-90 including the registration certificate u/s 43 of the Act 30/87.It is also seen that during the years 1938 to 1953, the Revenue Records were manipulated and in the place of the name of the subject temple in pattadar column, the names of different persons were mischievously entered in the Revenue Records without any authority and on the guise of these illegal entries, several sale transactions were taken place which cannot acquire legal value and they are null and void under provisions of the Act 30/87. Evidently, the petitioner had not challenged the orders of the Government and the Revenue Authorities issued in G.O.Ms.No. 269 dt. 14-3- 96 declaring that the land Ac.881.31belongs to the subject temple and also when the D.R.O. issued orders dt. 12-7-90 resuming the lands in favour of the temple. His silence in this regard has to be concluded that he had no case to take the matter in appeals before the competent court. Even now he had not produced any documentary evidence in support of his contention except the illegal sale deed through which he had purchased the scheduled property. In the light of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order No. 32 dt. 27-1-04 in O.A.No. 96/99 passed by the Dy.Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.” It is apparent that there is a total non-application of mind to the relevant material both by the primary and revisional authorities. The petitioners appear to have marshaled some cogent material in support of their claim to ownership and possession of the properties by producing their sale deeds and those of their vendors. The respondents are required, before proceeding to declare the petitioners as encroachers and directing their eviction under Section 83 of the Act to establish (a) that the property belongs to the Devasthanam; (b) that there is encroachment on this property; and (c) that the occupation of this property by the petitioners is without lawful authority and title and warrants an order of declaration of encroachment and a consequent order of eviction. The essential prerequisite for proceedings under Section 83 of the Act by the Devasthanam is establishment of its title and that burden is on the Devasthanam and that burden ought to be discharged by producing relevant and probative material which would satisfy the competent authority or Forum by the standards of probability that the Devasthanam has title to the property. Such a conclusion is a condition precedent for exercise of further power under Section 83 of the Act to declare a person in occupation as an encroacher. The primary and revisional authorities have failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction in the matter of determining the title of the Devasthanam in respect of the lands in question. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the 1st respondent dated 25-5-2005 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 27-1- 2004 in the several revision petitions and O.As., challenged in these writ petitions cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. In the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the property presumably and as asserted belongs to the Devasthanam and has been encroached by private persons, and the relevant proceedings have not been properly dealt with diligently and with commitment warranted while exercising powers under Section 83 of the Act, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider and take appropriate steps by way of filing applications/proceedings before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with an appropriate application seeking appropriate interim relief. In this the respondent shall fail not. None of the observations made herein shall be construed by the Endowments Tribunal or any other appropriate Forum before which proceedings may be instituted by either of the parties, as an expression by this Court as to the title in favour of the petitioners or the Devasthanam, as the case may be. On 10-8-2005 in W.P.No. 17698 of 2005, this Court directed status quo as regards possession of the land in question and further observed that if the writ petitioner is in possession and entitled to continue in possession thereof in view of the Status quo orders passed by this Court, he shall however for-bear from making any alienation of the property in question or any improvements on the property and shall not be entitled to claim any equities by virtue of the interim order of Status quo granted. In the interest of justice and equity, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the writ petitioners to maintain Status quo with regard to the property in question and the petitioners shall not also make any improvements or alterations on the property in question nor alienate the properties to any third parties for a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, within which time the respondents herein may move the Endowments Tribunal for appropriate orders, as already observed and directed supra. The writ petitions are disposed of as above after hearing Sri E.Madanmohan Rao, learned counsel for the several petitioners and Sri D. Sudershan Reddy, learned standing counsel for Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple, Devar Yemzal. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the Endowments Department at the hearing of these writ petitions. There shall however be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 26th August, 2010. GRR