THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 122 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 88 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act 30 of 1987’), is directed against the order dated 06.12.2008 passed by the first respondent in R.P. No.9 of 2008 whereunder and whereby the revision petition filed challenging the order dated 1.4.2008 in I.A. No.40 of 2007 in O.A. No.21 of 2007 passed by the second respondent, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the Revision Petition is filed under Section 92 of the Act 30 of 1987. Under Section 92 of the Act, the Commissioner may either suo motu or on the application, call for and examine the record of any Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, or of any other trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment, other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a math in respect of any administrative or quasi-judicial decision taken or order passed under this Act, but not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application, or reference to a court is provided by this Act to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order taken or passed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Commissioner of Endowments has delegated the power to the first respondent, who is the Regional Joint Commissioner, as provided under Section 92 of the Act. But, no such Government Order is brought to the notice of this Court to show that the first respondent was authorized by the Commissioner to exercise the revisional powers under Section 92 of the Act. Even assuming for a moment that the first respondent is empowered to exercise revisional powers under Section 92 of the Act, but the said powers can be exercised only when there is no appeal or reference provision to the Court, and in the absence of such providing appeal or reference, revisional jurisdiction under Section 92 can be invoked. 5. Admittedly, the order of the second respondent viz. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments is appellable under Section 84 (2) of the Act as it stood unamended before this Court. Under Section 84 (2) of the Act, nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by any order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) of Section 83 from preferring an appeal before the High Court to establish that the Charitable or religious Institution or Endowment has no title to the land, building or space. Therefore, there is a specific provision provided under the Act 30 of 1987 to prefer an appeal before this Court against the orders of the second respondent or by the Constitution of the Tribunal by the Government. In the absence of any provision, entertaining the revision itself by the first respondent is without jurisdiction and consequently the order passed by the first respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and hence, it is liable to be set aside, and is, accordingly, set aside. 6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly disposed of. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 08.12.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 122 of 2010 08.12.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 122 of 2010 08.12.2010 Between: Konda Seshi Reddy & others …Petitioners And The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II, Tirupathi, Chittoor district & others …Respondents