THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.29767 of 2010 Date : 17-2-2011 Between : Rayavaram Sukumar .. Petitioner And The executive Officer-cum- Assistant Commissioner, Gramasakthi Poleramma Temple, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri M.Ravindra Counsel for respondent No.1 : A.G.P. for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Sashidhar for Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Standing counsel The Court made the following: ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property bearing Door No.13-91, Bajaj Street, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore District. He has traced his title to a registered sale deed dated 10-11-1944 under which his grand father by name Venkata Seshaiah Setty purchased the property from its original owner. The petitioner also filed the tax receipts evincing payment of tax to Venkatagiri Municipality in support of his claim that his family is in possession of the property in question. He submitted that as the property is situated opposite to respondent No.1-Temple, on festival and other occasions when the ritual called Kumbum is performed, the shop is being closed on the request of the respondents for performance of such ritual. The petitioner alleged that the respondents have been unduly interfering with his possession of the property. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Executive officer of respondent No.1-Temple wherein it is inter alia stated that the property admeasuring 6’ x 6’ and situated by the side of property bearing No. 13-109, belonging to Sri Manjuuru Shobha Ratnamma, belongs to respondent No.1- Temple. He has filed a copy of the extract of the register maintained as per Section 43 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) in support of his plea. While maintaining that he is not aware of the sale transaction pleaded by the petitioner, he has stated that even if there was such a transaction, the same is void in view of Section 80(1)(a) of the Act. Respondent No.1 further averred that the shop is already vacated and the authorities are taking possession of the same for performing the above mentioned ritual. In the face of the material placed by the petitioner, it is not possible to accept the plea of the respondents that the shop is vacated by the petitioner. No evidence is placed by the respondents in support of the said plea. The existence of a registered sale deed of the year 1944 is not disputed by the respondents. The petitioner has thus been asserting his right and title over the property under a long standing registered sale deed. Therefore, the respondents cannot seek to summarily evict the petitioner without following the due process of law. If the respondents assert their right and title over the property, they can only seek the petitioner’s eviction by initiating proceedings under Section 83 of the Act before the Endowments Tribunal. Unless they approach the Tribunal and succeed in getting an order of eviction, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 17-2-2011 AM