HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 8198 OF 2010 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the proceedings of the second respondent dated 22.03.2010 in relation to the petitioner’s land admeasuring 1984 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.9/1 of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act, 1956, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The proceedings impugned, in this writ petition, is the notice dated 22.03.2010 informing the petitioner that he was in unauthorized occupation of the property in question without approval of the competent authority; his unauthorized occupation would squarely come within the definition of ‘Encroacher’ under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987); and he was liable to be evicted from the scheduled property. The petitioner was also called upon to hand over possession of the schedule mentioned property to the second respondent-Devasthanam within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice failing which the second respondent-Devasthanam would take necessary and appropriate legal action against him invoking the provisions of Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987 for his eviction; damages for use of the property; and occupation of the property. Sri P.Roy Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner’s title is traceable from 1903 and, in as much as the second respondent-Devasthanam was issued a ryotwari patta in 1996, that too, behind the petitioner’s back, the summary proceedings under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987 cannot be resorted to. He would submit that, since the petitioner was not aware of the ryotwari patta being granted in favour of the Devasthanam; and as the Inams Act requires the petitioner also to be put on notice, he would invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the Act to have the ryotwari patta cancelled. Section 151 of Act 30 of 1987 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with respect to any matters of dispute for determination under the provisions of Act 30 of 1987. It is well settled that this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India, would not decide disputed questions of title. Further, against an order passed under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987, an appeal lies to this Court under Section 84(2) to establish that the charitable and religious institution or endowment had no title to the land or building in question. While the proceedings under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987 are no doubt summary in nature, it is only if the petitioner is held to be an ‘encroacher’, that too after he is given an opportunity of being heard, can action be initiated thereunder. In case the petitioner is able to establish his title to the property, he would then be the owner of the property and not an ‘encroacher’ within the meaning of Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987. Under Section 83 the alleged encroacher is not only to be put on notice but also to be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The petitioner can as well urge all the contentions raised in this Writ Petition before the competent authority, who is entitled to exercise jurisdiction under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987, and establish his title. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as are available to him in law including by way of filing objections to the notice as and when issued under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:13.04.2010 Usd