HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.19929 of 2000 Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008 Between: Smt. B. Jyothi … Petitioner AND The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool, and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.19929 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool, by initiating the proceedings under Section 83 of the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Endowment Act’) against the petitioner in O.A.No.1 of 2000, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the said proceedings. 2) On 23.01.2000 the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner mentioning that she encroached an extent of Ac.8.62 cents of land in Survey No.69 and an extent of Ac.5.90 cents of land in Survey No.71/2 situated in Gajula Mandyam village belonging to the third respondent. Therefore, she was directed to appear before the first respondent either in person or through her counsel on 08.02.2000 at 2 p.m. and explain as to why she shall not be removed from the disputed land. 3) The petitioner instead of appearing before the first respondent preferred the present writ petition contending that her husband was the cultivating tenant of the land under a lease deed for the period from 07.03.1994 to 06.03.2009. The third respondent issued a legal notice on 23.07.1997 to her husband directing to surrender the possession of the disputed land. Her husband filed A.T.C.No.4 of 1997 before the Tenancy Tribunal against the third respondent under Section 10 and 15 of the A.P. Tenancy Act to declare that he is the cultivating tenant of the land. During pendency of the said matter, her husband died and she was brought on record. The said ATC was dismissed after enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred an appeal, covered by ATA No.4 of 1999, before the III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and it is pending for disposal. 4) It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was also dismissed subsequently. Since the impugned notice has been issued during pendency of the appeal, the present writ petition has been filed. 5) The petitioner lost in the Tenancy Court. She contended in the writ petition that the provisions of the A.P. Tenancy Act are applicable to her case, but not the provisions of the Endowments Act. 6) It is well established that the provisions of A.P. Tenancy Act are not applicable to the lands of the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions under the Endowments Act. Under the Endowments Act, all leases stood terminated. Therefore, there is no landlord and tenancy relationship between the petitioner and third respondent. Then only a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent and contest the matter if there is any ground. I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to direct the first respondent to stop making enquiry under Section 83 of Endowments Act. 7) In view of the interim stay granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.25258 of 2000 on 20.10.2000, the first respondent could not proceed with the enquiry. Now, the first respondent is at liberty to proceed with the matter. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool, either in person or through counsel and make the submissions, if any, on her behalf and on appearance of the petitioner, the firs respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits according to law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. 8) With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 31.01.2008 Isn