THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2905 of 2011 Dated 11th February, 2011 Between: Rajeti Vijayananda Rao …Petitioner And The A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Tribunal, at Hyderabad, rep.by its Chairman and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Narasimhulu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri V.T.M.Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order, dated 28.12.2010, in I.A.No.341 of 2010, in O.A.No.33 of 2010, on the file of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 filed O.A.No.33 of 2010 under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) for eviction of the petitioner from land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Survey No.258/1 of Srikakulam Town. The petitioner was set ex parte in the said proceedings and an order of eviction was passed by respondent No.1- Tribunal by judgment (award), dated 27.08.2010. The petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. Along with the said application, another application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the said application. Respondent No.1, on considering both these applications, allowed the same, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.1,500/- per month from February, 2010. Feeling aggrieved by the condition imposed in the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Under sub-section (6) of Section 83 of the Act, the Endowments Tribunal is empowered to order the encroacher to deposit such amount as may be specified by it in consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question pending disposal of the eviction proceedings. In its judgment (award), dated 27.08.2010, respondent No.1 has observed that the notice sent to the petitioner has returned with the endorsement ‘refused’ and accordingly, the petitioner was set ex parte. Neither in the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree nor in the affidavit in the present writ petition, the petitioner had not specifically denied this finding, except vaguely stating that he has not received the notice. The petitioner, being a government employee, appears to have evaded the legal process by refusing to receive the notice, thereby allowing respondent No.1 to set him ex parte and render an ex parte judgment (award). Despite this conduct of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has taken a lenient view and allowed the applications filed by the petitioner subject to the above-mentioned condition. As noted above, the power to impose such a condition is vested in respondent No.1, which has exercised its discretion in a sound and proper manner, while setting aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3604 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th February, 2011 VGB