THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5942 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.A.No.11 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, under Sections 15 and 87(1) (h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), with a prayer to recognize him as member of the ‘founder family’ of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri, Guntur District (for short ‘the Temple’). He pleaded that the Temple is an ancient one; that great grandfather of his father, by name, Vasireddy Kotaiah, endowed an extent of Acs.5.15 cents of land in D.No.165 of Chinapalem Village, in the year 1905, and that his father has taken active part in renovation of the Temple and construction of steps to the Shrine of Sri Panakala Swamyvaru. Reliance was placed upon the proceedings, dated 31.05.1999, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, recognizing the father of the petitioner as member of ‘founder family’ of the Temple. He alleged that the authorities of the Temple are not recognizing his rights. The application was opposed by the Executive Officer of the Temple. He traced the history of the Temple and pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit claimed by him. He made reference to various proceedings that ensued before different Courts, as regards recognition of rights of different persons. Through his order, dated 16.08.2008, the Deputy Commissioner declared that the petitioner is a member of ‘founder family’ of the Temple, in view of the fact that his father was recognized, as such, in an earlier set of proceedings. The Temple filed A.S.No.287 of 2008 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, under Section 88 of the Act. The appeal was allowed on 11.08.2009 and the order, dated 16.08.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, was set aside. Hence, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appeal was not maintainable, in view of the amendment effected to Section 88 of the Act. He contends that the lower Appellate Court did not appreciate the purport of the provisions of law that were in force, as on the date of presentation of the appeal. He submits that the proceedings, dated 31.05.1999, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, were not challenged by any individual, or organization, and still the lower Appellate Court has chosen to declare them as invalid. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent- Temple, on the other hand, submits that the question of there being any founder family for an ancient Temple, established several centuries ago, does not arise. He contends that at no point of time, the Assistant Commissioner was conferred with the power to recognize an individual as Member of the founder family and that the lower Appellate Court had applied the relevant provisions of law. He further contends that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to entertain such applications stood ousted, on account of the amendment of the Act. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner with an application to recognize him as Member of the founder family of the Temple. It is not a case where he wanted the matter to be decided for the first time. The father of the petitioner was recognized by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, in the year 1999. The claim of the petitioner in the O.A., was more in the form of succession to the rights or status of his father. The Deputy Commissioner referred to the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed in the year 1999, discussed the matter from other perspectives, and ultimately allowed the application. The respondent filed the appeal before the District Court. Before the Act was amended through Act 33 of 2007, which came into effect on 03.01.2008, an appeal was certainly provided to a District Court against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Through Act 33 of 2007, the State Legislature has brought into existence, an altogether different mechanism and hierarchy of adjudication of disputes arising under the Act. An Endowment Tribunal is constituted under Section 87 of the Act and it is conferred with the powers to adjudicate all disputes, including those that were within the purview of the Deputy Commissioner. Till the effective functioning of the Tribunal, the power of the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate the matters, was kept in tact under sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the Act. The Appellate Forum under Section 88 is now the High Court. The result is that the District Court does not figure any where in the scheme of adjudication of disputes under the Act, after 03.01.2008. It appears that such an important development, emerging as a result of amendment of the Act was not brought to the notice of the lower Appellate Court. By the time the appeal was presented before the lower Appellate Court, the amendment came into force and the jurisdiction of the District Court was taken away. On this short ground, the order under revision is liable to set aside. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the judgment, dated 11.08.2009, rendered by the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in A.S.No.287 of 2008, is set aside. It is, however, left open to the Temple to pursue its remedies, if it feels aggrieved by the order, dated 16.08.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:04.08.2010 GJ