HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 2683 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner-Society seeks a direction from this Court to declare G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000, issued by the first respondent, the consequential action of the respondents in not considering their claim for grant of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.275 of Adavivaram Village, and insisting that the members of the petitioner-Society should vacate their residential houses constructed therein, as illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, the provisions of the Andha Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-Society also seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the said land in their favour without insisting that its members vacate therefrom. While several contentions are raised in this Writ Petition, it is wholly unnecessary to examine any of them in as much as Sri V. Venugopal Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for the Simhachalam Devasthanam, would draw attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.2832 of 2001 dated 05.11.2008 in which the petitioner herein had sought for a similar relief. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that since the petitioner had withdrawn the said Writ Petition without liberty being granted by this Court to file a Writ Petition afresh, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The relief sought for in W.P.No.2832 of 2001 was for a direction to declare that G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endowments- IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000 has no application to the petitioner-Sangham; that it was illegal and arbitrary; and to consequently direct the respondents to register an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.275 of Adavivaram Village near Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam District in favour of the petitioner-Society duly accepting the balance sale consideration. This relief covers a part of the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition. As W.P.No.2832 of 2001 was dismissed as withdrawn, by order dated 05.11.2008, without liberty being granted to file a Writ Petition afresh, the relief sought for by the petitioner herein, either to declare the G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.08.2000 as illegal or for a direction to register an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.275 of Adavivaram Village near Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam District in favour of the petitioner-Society duly accepting the balance sale consideration, cannot be granted. The Writ Petition, as presently filed to that extent, is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior[1]. As a result, the relief sought for to the extent that the petitioner seeks G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000 to be declared as illegal, and that an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.275 of Adavivaram Village be registered in favour of the petitioner- Society after accepting the balance consideration, cannot be granted. The petitioner-Society, however, also seeks a direction that they not be evicted from their residential units in question. The petitioner-Society has specifically stated, in paragraph 8 of their affidavit, that the second respondent, accompanied by its staff, had visited their residential units on 05.02.2010; had insisted to vacate within two days; and had threatened to otherwise demolish the said properties. Even if the petitioners are held to be in occupation of the residential units belonging to second respondent- Devasthanam, they are, at best, encroachers and can be evicted only in accordance with Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987. Leaving it open to the Respondents to initiate proceedings for eviction of the members of the petitioner-Society from the residential units belonging to the second respondent-Devasthanam in accordance with Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the members of the petitioner- Society till then. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:13.04.2010 Usd [1] AIR 1987 SC 88