THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5929 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner filed this revision under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 {“the Act” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 31.01.2007 passed in C.M.A.No.40 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 27.02.2004 passed in O.A.No.52 of 1998 by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed the present application under Section 87 (1) of the Act for declaration that the site covered by Municipal No.3- 4-501, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, and the Mulgies constructed over the said site does not form part of endowment. The petitioner claimed the entire said property as his own and being in possession for the last more than 50 to 60 years. Subsequently, he has constructed Mulgies and he has been paying tax. There are several entries in support of his claim. Further, the construction of the said Mulgies is also after obtaining Municipal permission. However, since the same is being sought to be claimed on behalf of the Temple, the said application was contested before the primary authority, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, and the same was dismissed holding that the property in dispute is endowment property. In the said order, the primary authority specifically mentioned that the land originally belong to the A.P. Housing Board and at the most the A.P. Housing Board could collect the required payment from the temple and confer the better title in favour of the temple. Further, the land around the temple is still vacant and the Assistant Commissioner is directed to approach the A.P. Housing Board for conferring better title by payment of required amount in respect of the vacant land around the temple, in the interest of the temple and to avoid further litigation. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the application, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed concurring with the finding of the primary authority. Hence, the revision. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the said application filed purportedly under Section 87 (1) of the Act is a comprehensive one wherein the right, title and interest of both the petitioner on one side and the Temple on the other side are involved. The mere apprehension is that it contemplates an enquiry for adjudication of the said dispute. For convenience sake, Section 87 (1) of the Act is extracted below. 87. Power of endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters:- (1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question-… From the expression used therein, it necessarily contemplates a regular enquiry with a due and sufficient opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence, both oral and documentary, and go through the material set forth, rather than dwelling into the petitions or affidavits that may be filed by both the sides. Admittedly, no such evidence has been produced either by the petitioner or on behalf of the department much less on behalf of the Temple. This Court in PABUN v. State of A.P.[1] held that the disputed facts have to be resolved by regular enquiry under Section 87 of the Act. Similarly, in Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman of Secunderabad and Hyderabad and others v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and others[2], this Court held that the enquiry under Section 87 of the Act is quasi- judicial and it shall supersede the administrative actions/orders culminating into the impugned order and it is also made appealable to the Court of District Judge under Section 88 of the Act and is further revisable by the High Court under Section 91 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid reasons, especially there being no material produced and there being no explanation from the Institution as to why no such material is produced, it is felt desirable that an enquiry should be conducted by giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the orders dated 31.01.2007 in C.M.A.No.40 of 2005 and dated 27.02.2004 in O.A.No.52 of 1998 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad, for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 24th February 2011 RRB [1] 1997 (1) ALD 171 (DB) [2] 2000 (1) ALD 482 (DB)