THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31568 OF 2010 BETWEEN: 1. T. Sudhakar S/o. Krishna Murthy, Retired Teacher, R/o. D.o.4/170, Chedellavari Choultry, Nawabpet, Nellore Town, P.S.R. Nellore District, and another. PETITIONERS And 1. The Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal Barkatpura, Hyderabad rep. by its Chairman, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri W.B. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: Sri V.T.M Prasad, Standing Counsel The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioners challenge the action of the 2nd respondent, viz., Sri Chedellavari Choulty, Nawabpet, Nellore Town, in approaching the 1st respondent-The Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, (Tribunal) by filing Original Applications (O.As) seeking for removal of encroachment of the 2nd respondent property by the petitioners, as illegal and to interdict the Tribunal from proceeding to consider the said O.As. 2. The petitioners claim to be residing in the house bearing D.Nos.4/170 and 4/171, Nawabpet, Nellore. The said house property admittedly belongs to the 2nd respondent-Choultry. The 2nd respondent leased the said property to the petitioners for a period of three years commencing from 1.10.1999 to 30.09.2002. After expiry of the said period the lease was not extended. Alleging that the petitioners defaulted in payment of rents for over six months resulting in huge loss of income, and that as the lease was not extended, the status of the petitioners is that of an encroacher, the 2nd respondent approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2010 for removal of the petitioners. 3. This writ petition is filed to interdict the proceedings in the said O.As. basically on the premise that the suits O.S.Nos.871 and 872 of 2009 have been filed in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners not to raise any pucca or RCC constructions on the land, and W.P.No.26993 of 2009 filed in this Court are pending adjudication of the disputes raised therein. Another premise is that the writ petitioners have approached the 3rd and 4th respondents, viz., the Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad and the State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) (Endowments), for a long lease for 25 years with necessary permission to reconstruct the building at a cost of Rs.12 lakhs and the application dated 18.01.2010 filed in this regard has been endorsed by the Minister for Endowments and the Commissioner of Endowments, and they have called for a report from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore for further steps. The petitioners contend that in view of the said representation being under consideration, the 2nd respondent is unjustified in pursuing the O.As. 4. Heard Smt. Usha Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.T.M. Prasad learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the facts pleaded in this writ petition would contend that the 2nd respondent has invoked plurality of remedies in O.S.Nos.871 & 872 of 2009 in the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore and W.P.No.26993 of 2009 in this Court. She would also contend that the petitioners are pursuing the Government and endowment authorities for a long lease. The subject matter of the property and the issues involved in the suits are substantially similar. It is contended that the O.As have been filed sans bona fides with a view to harass the petitioners. She would further contend that in the event of the petitioners succeeding in their efforts to secure a long lease from the Government and the endowment authorities, the petitioners would suffer prejudice if O.As. are ordered against them. 6. The learned Standing Counsel would oppose the contentions and submit that the O.As have been validly instituted as per the provisions of the statute and the 1st respondent being a competent forum, it is entitled to entertain and adjudicate the claims in the O.As. He would further contend that the petitioners are defaulters in payment of rents besides being encroachers of the premises squatting on the property without valid lease. He would further contend that the issues involved in the suits and the writ petition are not similar as the issues in the O.As and the alleged efforts of the petitioner before the Government and the Endowment authorities cannot be a ground to interdict the proceedings before the 1st respondent. He would further contend that as per the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.866, dated 8.08.2003 grant of lease or licence should be only by way of public auction. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the subject premises is the property of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners are tenants. Indisputably the subject property was leased to the petitioners for a period of three years from 1.10.1999 to 30.09.2002 and the same has not been extended. Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for eviction of encroachers, removal of encroachments and delivery of property encroached upon. The Tribunal on receipt of an application, on reaching a prima facie case of encroachment, may cause a notice to be served upon the encroacher and after conducting enquiry, by order require the encroacher to remove the encroachment and deliver possession before a date specified in such order. It is therefore evident that the Tribunal is the creature of statute and authorized to deal with the matters for removal of encroachments. There is no embargo placed on the power of the Tribunal to defer the exercise of its power on any pretext including those that are invoked by the petitioners. The alleged efforts being pursued either before the Government or the endowments authority cannot defeat the rights of the owner of the endowed property to seek remedy from the Tribunal or by such reason the Tribunal could be interdicted from exercising the powers vested in it by law. 8. It does not appear that the reliefs sought for in the suits and the writ petition are the same as the reliefs sought in the O.As. From the pleadings of the petitioners it is evident that the relief sought for in O.S.Nos.871 & 872 of 2009 is for permanent injunction not to raise any pucca or RCC constructions over the suit schedule land and W.P.No.26993 of 2009 is for a direction to declare the action of the Assistant Commissioner Endowments and Sub-Inspector of Police in not directing or aiding the 2nd respondent in stopping the illegal constructions undertaken by the petitioners and for a direction to the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Nellore, to demolish the illegal constructions made by them. It therefore cannot be countenanced that the issues are common in both the suits and the O.As. This apart, the Act being a special enactment, inter alia dealing with removal of encroachments, the pendency of proceedings in other fora cannot be a ground to interdict the proceedings before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners however would urge that the leases of the petitioners were extended orally and therefore they could not be considered as encroachers. The explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act would specifically provide that a person who remains in the land or building or space after the expiry of termination or cancellation of lease or mortgage or licence in respect thereof would be an encroacher. It is the specific case of the 2nd respondent that the lease had expired and the same had not been extended. In the light of this specific denial it is for the petitioners to establish the oral lease before the Tribunal. 10. There being no legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the O.As. urged, this writ petition is without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31.12.2010 Js. Note : Issue C.C. in one week. B/O LVL