THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NOS. 12179, 12181, 12182, 12183, 12213, 12216, 12220, 12223, 12224, 12230, 12232, 12236, 12240, 12245, 12247, 12312, 12352, 12364,12366, 12367, 12368, 12369, 12397, 12426, 12428, 12435, 12442, 12446, 12448, 12482 OF 2011 DT.27.4.2011 W.P.NO.12179 OF 2011 Between: D SURESH … Petitioner And The A P Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K Chidambaram Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: G P for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri V T M Prasad (SC for Endowments Dept) The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NOS. 12179, 12181, 12182, 12183, 12213, 12216, 12220, 12223, 12224, 12230, 12232, 12236, 12240, 12245, 12247, 12312, 12352, 12364,12366, 12367, 12368, 12369, 12397, 12426, 12428, 12435, 12442, 12446, 12448, 12482 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since all these writ petitions are similar in nature, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. The orders passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad in different Original Applications dated 28.2.2011 are under challenge in these writ petitions. The petitioners are lessees of shops situate at 19th ward, Palakol, West Godavari district, belonging to Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamyvari Temple/ the 5th respondent institution herein. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Eluru/the 4th respondent herein submitted a report to the A.P. Endowments Tribunal under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 seeking eviction of the petitioners from their respective shops. Leasehold rights in respect of said shops were granted by way of public auction for the lease period upto 31.10.2006, however, there was no extension of the lease thereafter. Since, the petitioners failed to vacate the premises and squatting over the property, on a complaint of the 5th respondent institution, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments laid the report before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal. The petitioners herein/respondents before the Tribunal filed a counter denying that they are encroachers and contended that they have been continuing in the said shops on payment of rents regularly. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 4 and 5 herein examined Mr.Ch.Suryachandra Rao as P.W.1 and marked the proceedings of the Commissioner in D.Dis No. B2/10769/2003 as Ex.1 and the registered notices issued to the respondent and acknowledgement as Ex.P2 to P5 respectively. The writ petitioners/respondents did not adduce any evidence to prove that the lease was extended and that they are not encroachers. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence and material on record, held that the petitioners are encroachers as they continued to squat on the premises even after notices demanding them to vacate and the expiry of lease by 31-10-2006. Accordingly, the Tribunal by its order dated 28.2.2011, allowed the Original Applications directing the writ petitioners to vacate and hand over the respective premises within one month, in default of voluntarily vacating the premises, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has been directed to implement the orders with the assistance of police. Indisputably, the premises in question belongs to 5th respondent institution viz., Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamyvari Temple. The lease hold rights which were granted to the writ petitioners by way of auction expired by 31.10.2006. There is no dispute that the said lease has not been extended any further, but the petitioners continued to remain in occupation of the premises. On the expiry of the lease, the 5th respondent institution did not intend to extend it, and called upon the petitioners to vacate the premises, to which they did not respond, as such, the petitioners are “encroachers” as per the explanation to Section 83 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be faulted. The only grievance presented by the learned counsel for petitioners is that as the petitioners are conducting business in the subject premises and eking out their livelihood they are entitled for extension of lease on enhancement of rent by 33 1/3 % over the existing rent as per the Government policy and the circular issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide Circular No. 9 in Rc.No.DP (1)/16731/2010 dated 21.4.2010. It is stated that the 5th respondent has already submitted proposals to the Regional Joint Commissioner/the 3rd respondent herein recommending to extend the lease to the petitioners in terms of the circular dated 21.4.2010 and in turn the 3rd respondent has submitted his recommendations to the Commissioner of Endowments/the 2nd respondent and the same is still pending consideration. The learned counsel therefore submits that the Commissioner of Endowments/the 2nd respondent be directed to take appropriate decision on the recommendations submitted by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the proposals submitted by 5th respondent institution. The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the Tribunal has granted one month time to vacate the subject premises which is wholly insufficient and petitioners require considerable time to search alternate accommodation and shift the infrastructure. It is true that the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the extension of lease nor the same was within its purview. However, it is always permissible for the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments to consider the recommendations of the 3rd respondent and take appropriate decision thereon. The 2nd respondent is therefore directed to consider the same in terms of circular No. 9 in Rc.No.DP (1)/16731/2010 dated 21.4.2010 and the Memo No. 201/5 dated 18.5.2010 issued by the State and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. Further, having regard to the necessity pleaded for reasonable time, the time granted by the Tribunal for vacating the premises by the writ petitioners is hereby extended by four months from today. Save the observation as above and enlargement of time, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J DATE: 27.4.2011 Note : Issue copy in 2 days B/o tvk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NOS. 12179, 12181, 12182, 12183, 12213, 12216, 12220, 12223, 12224, 12230, 12232, 12236, 12240, 12245, 12247, 12312, 12352, 12364,12366, 12367, 12368, 12369, 12397, 12426, 12428, 12435, 12442, 12446, 12448, 12482 OF /2011 DT.27.4.2011