IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23912 of 2008 Between: M. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. Opp. Ranjani Theatre, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Department of Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. 3 Maharaja Alak Narayana Society of Arts & Science known as Manasa's Trust, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Manasa's Office at Fort, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent passing orders in order No.60/2008 Jdl. dt.21-06-2008 in O.A.No.45/2004 is beyond his jurisdiction and the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23912 of 2008 ORDER: At the instance of the Maharaja Alak Narayana Society of Arts & Science, Vizianagaram, the third respondent herein, proceedings under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (“the Act” for brevity), were initiated before the Deputy Commissioner, the second respondent herein, against the petitioner alleging that he is in unauthorized occupation and possession of the site of an extent of 34 square yards in T.S.No.498, opposite to Ranjani Theatre, Vizianagaram. The same was taken up as O.A.No.45 of 2004. The petitioner resisted the O.A. by pleading that though he was in unauthorized possession of the site, initially, he started paying rent and at later point of time through order dated 21.06.2008, the second respondent directed eviction of the petitioner. Same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Sri B.Sesibushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once third respondent received rent without any demur, it cannot be said that the petitioner is an encroacher. He, further, contends that the petitioner is willing to continue as lessee on the terms that may be stipulated by the third respondent. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 submit that when there is no valid reason in favour of the petitioner, he is liable to be evicted. Learned Standing Counsel also contends that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has to workout his remedies by way of revision under Section 92 of the Act. The word ‘encroacher’ is deﬁned in very wide terms under Section 83 of the Act itself. Admittedly, there is no valid reason in favour of the petitioner. Thus, assuming that he is paying rent to the third respondent, the occupation of the premises does not become legal. Further, the petitioner does not dispute the title and right of the third respondent over the property. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order. Strictly speaking, the petitioner has to work out his remedies under Section 92 of the Act. However, a request is made that the petitioner may be permitted to remain in possession for some time and that in the event of fresh auction conducted, he may be permitted to participate. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that, (a) It shall be open to the third respondent to put the leasehold rights of the premises in question to auction and it shall be open to the petitioner to participate therein; (b) In case, the petitioner emerges as highest bidder or if he is willing to pay the amount that is ﬁxed as highest bid, fresh lease shall be granted in favour of the petitioner; and (c) It is also directed that in case the third respondent intends to retain the premises for its own use, the petitioner shall vacate the premises by 31.03.2009. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 5th November 2008 RRB