THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 25130 of 2002 O r d e r: The petitioner claims that he was granted lease of certain properties of respondent No.5-Temple on rent, and since then he has been continuing therein by paying the rents without committing any default. While so respondent No.5 filed an application in O.A. No. 76 of 1997 under Section 83(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, before respondent No. 2, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, for his eviction on the ground that he is an encroacher. Respondent No.2 by order dated 23.01.1999 passed ex parte orders. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 23.01.1999 directing the petitioner to vacate the encroachment. On coming to know about the ex parte order, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 24 of 1999, but the same was dismissed by order dated 04.01.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition in R.P. No. 41 of 2000 before the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, who by order dated 12.09.2000 dismissed the same on the ground that the Executive Officer of the respondent-Temple was not party respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed further revision under Section 93 of the Act before respondent No.1-Government on 07.11.2000, and as no orders thereon he filed writ petition in W.P. No. 11432 of 2001, and pursuant to the orders dated 13.09.2002, respondent No.1-Government dismissed the revision by order dated 24.10.1992. The petitioner questioned the said order in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Government Pleader for Endowment for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-Temple. Though the petitioner contends that he is a lessee of the land in question belonging to respondent No.5-Temple, the same is disputed by the respondents, and it is their specific case, as is evident from the counters filed by them, and as recorded by respondent No.1- Government in the impugned order, the petitioner has encroached land in an extent of Ac. 0.01 cents. That in spite of granting time, he did not produce any material, much less any lease deed to show that he was granted the land in question on lease for a particular period. The petitioner to show that he is continuing on lease, though produced receipts issued by the Executive Officer of respondent No.5- Temple, the fact remains, the Executive Officer of respondent No.5- Temple, is said to have clearly mentioned on the receipts that the amount being collected thereunder is towards unauthorized use and occupation of the premises. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is in possession of the land of respondent No.5-Temple. He is not having any valid lease in his favour approved by the competent authority, namely the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, and he is continuing in the property since several decades without any manner of right whatsoever. This apart, it is the specific case of respondent No.5-Temple, and as found in the impugned order, the petitioner is said to be not paying any amounts since 26.07.1990. The petitioner, admittedly, claimed to be the lessee of respondent No.5-Temple, and that being so, he is a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the lis, and as the petitioner is said to have not made respondent No.5-Temple, as party-respondent, the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, dismissed the revision, filed by the petitioner against the orders of respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.4, in appeal, and no exception can be taken thereto. Though the Commissioner of Endowment, Andhra Pradesh, is alleged to have dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on technical ground that the petitioner did not make the Executive Officer of respondent No.5-Temple as party respondent, the fact remains, in further revision filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1-Government, considered the matter in the light of the material placed before them, and held that the petitioner is an encroacher of the land belonging to respondent No.5-Temple. There is no doubt that the Minister concerned had heard the revision, but when orders are made and communicated, they are always made in the name of the Principal Secretary/Chief Secretary to Government, as the case may be, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Minister concerned, who heard the revision, has to pass orders therein, and certainly that cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order, which held that the petitioner is encroacher of respondent No.5-Temple and he is squatting on the property without any manner of right or authority. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 18th August, 2010 KSR