IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 9014 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Nageswara Reddy S/o. Narasimha Reddy R/o. Chinna Kandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 V. Pulla Reddy S/o. Bagi Reddy R/o. Chinna Kandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 S. Chandra Obula Reddy S/o. Bala Obula Reddy R/o. Chinna Kandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Anjaneya Chenna Kesava Eswara Swami Group Temples Rep. by Executive Officer, Chinna Kandukuru, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in proceeding to conduct auction for the temple lands in the possession of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.0-95, 3-30, 10-4 and 12-87 cents in Sy.No's. 9, 436, 64 and 97 respectively of Chinnakandakuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District, even though petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying the lease amount every year and contrary to mandatory provisions of Sec.83 & 84 of the Act, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid temple lands by the petitioner by collecting lease amount as paid for earlier years. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: V.T.M.PRASAD,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in proceeding to conduct auction of certain temple lands which are in possession of the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of those lands. The petitioners assert that they occupied the lands of an extent of Ac.0.95, Ac.3.30, Ac.10.4 and Ac.12.87 cents in S.Nos.9, 436, 64 and 97 respectively which belong to Sri Anjaneya Chennakeswava Eswara Swami Group Temples, situated in Chinnakandakuru village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District about ten years ago and since then they have been cultivating them by paying lease amount to the Chairman of the Temples. Now, their grievance is that the respondent is trying to put the Temple lands to public auction and dispossess them from those lands. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners simply occupied the lands, it can be definitely said that they are encroachers. Even if they are treated as encroachers, the temple authorities cannot evict them summarily in view of the provisions of Sections 83 and 84 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity “the Act”). Chapter XI deals with Encroachments. Section 83 of the Act under this Chapter deals with encroachments by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroachers. In this Section, a prescribed procedure is also laid down to be followed for eviction of encroachers. Similarly, Section 84 of the Act deals with the mode of eviction. As various extents of lands belonging to the Temples have been occupied by several persons unauthorisedly for many years, the legislature thought it fit to introduce the said provision of law for such people. When such a provision is made in the Act, the authorities cannot say that they should be summarily evicted. In fact, a learned single judge of this Court in P.Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Endowments and Others[1] discussed an identical case and held that the authorities are duty bound to follow the mandatory requirements of Sections 83 and 84 of the Act. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed at the admission stage and the respondent is hereby directed to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 83 and 84 of the Act before seeking eviction of the petitioners. No costs. ______________ 23.04.2008 Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o bcj [1] 2005(2) ALT 554