IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16699 of 2008 Between: Smt. Saraswathi Singh D/o Balram Singh R/o 11-5-95 to 101, Bazarghat, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction, particularly a Writ in the Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the 2nd respondent in R.P. No. 885/2004 dated 07-01-2008 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.V.SUBRAMANYA NARASU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16699 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing No.11-5-95 to 101 belonging to Sri Kalabhairavaswamy Temple, Bazar Ghat, Nampally, Hyderabad. At the instance of the temple, proceedings were initiated for eviction under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) and after due enquiry the 3rd respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, by order dated 7.7.2004, while declaring the writ petitioner as an encroacher, ordered eviction. Challenging the same, the petitioner ﬁled a Revision Petition No.885 of 2004 before the 2nd respondent herein. However, the said Revision Petition also ended in dismissal by order dated 7.1.2008. The petitioner states that challenging the said order she preferred a further Revision before the 1st respondent under Section 93 of the Act on 6.2.2008. Though the petitioner also ﬁled an application with a prayer to suspend the orders of the 3rd respondent, as upheld by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the 1st respondent failed to pass any order so far. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile the 4th respondent is taking steps to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. Since admittedly the statutory revision under Section 93 of the Act is pending before the Government, I deem it appropriate to protect the possession of the petitioner till the Revision Petition is disposed of on merits. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition pending on its ﬁle as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 7.7.2004 as conﬁrmed by the 2nd respondent by order dated 7.1.2008 shall not be given effect to. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 1.8.2008 gbs Note- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs