THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.13383 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be the occupant of an extent of 2000 square yards site in Sitarambagh, Hyderabad, belonging to Sri Sitarama Maharaj Samsthan, Sitarambagh, Hyderabad seeking to quash the Memo dated 16.6.2009 issued by the 1st respondent – Government. Few facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that originally the grand father of the petitioner herein was the tenant of the land in question from 1962-63 onwards and was doing Kadvi business in the said land. In the year 1977, since he became old and could not carry on the business, the petitioner herein was inducted as a tenant under the 2nd respondent- Member, Founders Family of Sri Seetharama Maharaj Sansthan, Seetharambagh, Hyderabad. In the year 1981, the 2nd respondent filed O.A.No.110 of 1981 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioner from the said land. The said O.A. was initially dismissed for default and later, the same was restored to file and renumbered as O.A.No.39 of 1986. After going through the material placed before him, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the O.A. holding that the lease is not subsisting since 1980 and, therefore, the occupation of the petitioner over the said land is an encroachment and the same is liable to be removed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent herein in R.P.No.23 of 2001. The said revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 4th respondent-Deputy Commissioner for fresh trial observing that the record of the lower court reveals that the land in question is in the possession of the family members of the petitioner only and that the 1st respondent himself admitted in the cross examination that the notice of termination of tenancy was not served on the alleged encroacher, the petitioner herein. Pursuant thereto, the matter was enquired into in detail and vide orders dated 11.4.2001, it was held that inasmuch as the notice of termination after expiry of the lease, much less under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, was held to be not required, there is no necessity to see whether in the instant case, the notice of termination of tenancy was issued by the 1st respondent and if so, whether the same was served or not; that after 30.9.1980, the possession of the petitioner herein over the schedule land was not in pursuance of any fresh agreement and that he is continuing in the said land without the consent of the 2nd respondent herein and that as per Section 83 of the Endowment Act, in the absence of any approved lease, a person continuing in possession over the endowed land would be considered as tress passer. The contention advanced by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not competent to initiate the proceedings for his eviction was also negatived on the ground that as per Section 83 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to act on the complaint made by the trustee and in the instant case also on the complaint given by the Member of the Founder Trustees Family only, the proceedings were initiated. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared as an encroacher of the land in question and was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the same, failing which, action would be initiated against him as provided under Section 84 of the Act. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner again filed a revision petition being R.P.No.23 of 2001 before the 3rd respondent herein, who by order dated 30.12.2002 allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders in O.A.No.39 of 1986. The 2nd respondent herein has also filed a revision petition before the government against the said order. There was some proposal for compromise before the Principal Secretary but ultimately the government allowed the revision petition setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent herein and confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner by G.O.Rt.No.338 dated 21.2.2007. Seeking review of the said order, the petitioner again approached the Government, which by order dated 16.6.2009, dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner herein observing that even though initially an effort was made to effect a compromise between the parties and continue the petitioner herein in the site up to 31.12.2006 on enhanced rent, as per the orders of this Court, no compromise can be effected under Section 89 of the Act and that since all the material facts were considered and both the parties were heard and the G.O. dated 21.2.2007 was passed on merits, there is no mistake, whether of fact or of law, or ignoring of any material fact in the orders passed by the government, much less when there are no subsisting lease approval orders of the competent authority since 1980 in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Member, Founder’s family of the Samsthan and perused the material placed on record. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served with any notice before termination of tenancy as envisaged under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and that in fact, he reached an understanding with the 2nd respondent to continue in occupation of the land and the same was also signed by both the parties and therefore he has withdrawn the writ petition filed by him earlier. It is also contended that the ‘understanding’ reached by him with the 2nd respondent is not a ‘compromise’ as understood by the authorities and, therefore, the same can be acted upon. Admittedly, the lease in favour of the petitioner expired in the year 1980 and since then the petitioner is continuing in possession of the said land on one ground or the other and also initiated many proceedings. Ultimately, dealing with all the contentions, the government dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by passing detailed orders considering each and every contention advanced by the petitioner. Even the review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the government by a reasoned order. That apart, the contention of the petitioner that, in fact, he was not served with notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings seeking his eviction are liable to be quashed, cannot be acceded to in view of the settled position of law that the provisions relating to encroachment are self contained in the Act and therefore, the provisions of Transfer of Property Act are not applicable to these proceedings under the Act. Further, the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not a pre-requisite for initiating the proceedings under Section 83 of the Act. Coming to the contention that the parties reached an understanding in regard to continuation of the lease on enhanced amount and, therefore, he cannot be evicted from the said land, the same cannot be accepted since this Court has already held that no compromise can be effected under Section 89 of the Act, until further orders. In such circumstances, the orders passed by the Government in the review petition cannot be found fault with and are liable to be confirmed. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT. msv