THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25513 of 2010 Date: 2.2.2011 Between: Baddi Venkata Prasad and others. ..... PETITIONER AND Sr Seetharamachandra Swamyvari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri Ch. Satish Kumar The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25513 of 2010 Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish and dispossess the petitioners from the House bearing Nos. 1-242, 1-243/1, 1-239, 1-240 and 1-135/D/3 comprised in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 of Purushothampatnam Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 85 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioners are in occupation of the lands, which admittedly belong to respondent No.1-Devasthanam. In the year 1995, pattas were granted in respect of the said properties in favour of respondent No.1-Devasthanam. The petitioners’ attempt to challenge the pattas failed with dismissal of the departmental appeal, the writ petition and the writ appeal by this Court. As a result, the pattas granted in favour of respondent No.1 have become final. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Hyderabad issued proceedings Rc. B2/7052/98, dated 2.2.1999 declaring that the petitioners and similarly situated occupants of the lands admeasuring Acs.917.00 in Old Survey No.17 of Purushothapatnam Village belonging to respondent No.1 as encroachers and directed the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department to evict them and handover physical possession of the lands to the Executive Officer of respondent No.1-Devasthanam. When efforts were made to evict the encroachers, some of them have filed Writ Petition No. 23853 of 2008 in this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed. This Court inter alia repelled the contentions raised by the petitioners saying that unless recourse to Section 85 of the Act is taken, they cannot be evicted. Indeed, while rejecting the said contentions, this Court has relied upon the judgment dated 17.9.2008 of this Court in Writ Petition No.27476 of 2007 (Bandari Harnath vs. Sri Seetharamachandra Swamyvari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below: “........Even otherwise, the stand taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is almost challant in nature. He feels that even if his possession is illegal, he can be dispossessed, only by taking recourse to Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. It only exhibits his unshaken confidence that he would be able to thwart the attempts of the Temple for few more decades. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Further, mere pendency of an appeal or revision before the 4th respondent cannot be the basis for the petitioner to be in possession of the land.......”(emphasis supplied) Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and it is directed that if the petitioner continues in possession of the land beyond 30.09.2008, he shall be liable to pay the lease amount for the land at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per acre, for the past five years; and the recovery of the said amount shall be in addition to the right of the Temple to evict the petitioner, without the need of institution of any further proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.” On a perusal of the above judgment, I find no merit in the submission of Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao that the petitioners in this writ petition cannot be evicted without following the procedure envisaged under Sections 83 and 85 of the Act. Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners however sought to distinguish the judgment in the above writ petition by stating that subsequent to the disposal of the above mentioned writ petition, Sections 83 and 85 have been amended with effect from 3.1.2008. The first part of his submission is factually incorrect because while the amendments referred to above came into force with effect from 3.1.2008, the writ petition was disposed of on 18.12.2008. Even otherwise, the effect of the amendments was to substitute the forum with the Endowments Tribunal in place of the Deputy Commissioner, without changing the contents of the provisions. The learned counsel has not disputed that the petitioners in this writ petition are similarly situated as those in Writ Petition No. 23853 of 2008. It is also not disputed that the judgment in the said writ petition has attained finality. In the face of the unequivocal finding of this Court that respondent No.1 is entitled to evict the petitioners therein after rejecting the similar submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed following the ratio laid down by this Court in the orders passed in the writ petitions referred to above. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, W.P.M.P. No.32509 of 2010 and W.V.M.P. No. 5631 of 2010 are dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 2nd February, 2011 pnb