THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.23284 of 2010 DATED: 21.09.2010 Between: N. Rajendra Kumar .. Petitioner And The Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Kachiguda, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Temple. It appears, the 3rd respondent- Manager/Executive Officer of Sri Pahadi Hanuman Temple situated at North Lala Guda, Secunderabad, filed O.A.No.529 of 2007 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, alleging that the petitioner encroached the premises of the temple and prayed for his eviction therefrom under the provisions of the Act 30/87, and on the said O.A. being transferred to the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, the Tribunal issued notice dated 24.08.2010, informing the petitioner the date of hearing of the O.A. as 31.08.2010 and directing him to appear before the Tribunal on the said date at 10.30 a.m. in-person or through his advocate, failing which it was stated that the matter will be proceeded in his absence. The petitioner seeks to question the said notice in the present writ petition, contending that he is not an encroacher of the temple land and the 3rd respondent has no locus standi to file the O.A. and hence the O.A. is not maintainable. Admittedly, the Endowments Tribunal has been constituted to deal with and decide the disputes with respect to encroachments by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroachers, which were hitherto being dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. The case before the Deputy Commissioner having been transferred to the Tribunal, the Tribunal issued the present impugned notice, directing the petitioner to appear before it on the date so fixed for hearing. Whether or not the petitioner is an encroacher of temple land and whether or not the 3rd respondent has locus standi to file the O.A., are the matters that have to be decided by the Tribunal. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned notice issued by the Tribunal and I find no reason to interfere therewith in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 21st September, 2010 IBL