HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 16091 of 2009 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the lands admeasuring Ac.0.78 cents in Sy.No.126/1 and Ac.0.71 cents in Sy.No.126/3 situated at Fazulbagpeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal. The petitioner claims to be in possession and in enjoyment of the aforesaid lands contending that they are his ancestral property. He would submit that the encumbrance certificate, obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Srikakulam, showed that the property was still in the name of his fore-fathers; the first respondent and other officials came over to his lands and tried to evict him highhandedly stating that the lands belonged to Sri Jagannadha Swamy Vari Temple; he had earlier lodged a claim under Section 15(1) of the Estates Abolition Act; and the competent authority, by order dated 12.04.1962, had held in favour of the petitioner’s father. The petitioners seeks a direction from this Court that he not be evicted. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent-Temple, wherein it is stated that, since the petitioner’s fore-fathers had failed to make payment in respect of damages, a notice in Form –I was issued, under Section 82(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), on 25.04.2003 to the tenant Sri K.Veera Swamy, who was one of the five sons of Sri K.Surayya and the brother of petitioner’s father; the notice was received by Sri K. Veeraswamy on 03.05.2003; as he did not hand over possession of the lands to the second respondent-Temple, the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 16.07.2003, had taken possession and handed it over to the person-in-management of the Temple. A copy of the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam in Rc.No.A2/687/2002 dated 16.07.2003, is placed before this Court a reading of which makes it clear that, on invoking the powers under Section 84 of Act 30 of 1987 read with the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endts-II) Department dated 11.03.2003, the encroachment was removed and possession of the lands had been taken over and handed to the person-in-management of the second respondent- Temple. The said proceedings are attested to by witnesses and by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. When the matter came up on 10.03.2010 this Court took note of the proceedings dated 16.07.2003 and granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions. No reply affidavit has been filed till date denying the averment in the counter affidavit that possession had already been taken of the lands in question. In such circumstances I see no reason to disbelieve the averment in the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer of the second respondent-Temple. Since possession of the lands hitherto in occupation of the petitioner has already been taken and handed over on 16.07.2003 more than 6½ years ago, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such other remedies, as are available to him in law, to establish his title over the property in question. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:29.03.2010 usd