IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.12328 of 2009 Between: Mahant Narsing DAs S/o.Mahant Gopal Das Mahant of Sri Kyalikadas Mutt,R/o.Kyalikadas Mutt Kyalikabagicha, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department Multizone-III, Dharmika Bhavan, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta,Hyderabad 2 Abhay Kumar Jain S/o.Champalal Proprietor Sri.jain Saree Centre, Municipal No.14-4-13 & 14, Begumbazar, 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 appropriate writ or pass appropriate orders and more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling the entire records in RP.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALIVELASATYARAJA BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.SUDARSHAN REDDY.D The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records in R.P.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent-the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department and for quashing the same. The case of the petitioner is that he is Mahant of Kyalikadas Mutt (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mutt’) registered under the Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and it is under the administrative control of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. The Mutt is having mulgies bearing Municipal Nos.14-4-13 & 14 and the second respondent is the tenant. Since the second respondent is not having valid lease deed in his favour from the competent authority under the Act, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 12.04.2004 terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to vacate the said mulgies and handover the same to the Mutt. Since the second respondent did not comply with the legal notice, the petitioner filed an eviction petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad under Section 83 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, after conducting an enquiry, sent a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad recommending eviction of the second respondent. The Deputy Commissioner has taken cognizance of the case, numbered it as O.S.No.1 of 2005, and disposed of the same on 15.05.2009 declaring the second respondent as encroacher and directed him to vacate the mulgies and handover vacant possession of the same. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed a revision petition in R.P.No.16 of 2009 before the first respondent-the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department. In the said revision petition, an interim order of status quo was passed in I.A.No.2 of 2009. Hence, this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has no jurisdiction under Section 92(1) of the Act to entertain the revision filed against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department under Section 83 of the Act, and the same is admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. In view of the same, the proceedings of the first respondent entertaining the revision petition is quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 25.06.2009 va