APHC010086902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 496.497.498.499.506.507.508.509 OF 2024 and 319 of 2025 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 496 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section 84(2) of the APCHRI and Endowments Act, 1987, the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.ANo.562 of2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: 1. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by it's Executive Officer. 2. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by it's Executive Officer. ...Appellants AND 1. Kodali Vindhyarani, W/o. Arjuna Rao, Age not,known, R/o. D.No. 10- 154, 2nd Line, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada, Krishna District. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated injhe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Decree and Order Dt.31.07.2023 in O.A No. 562 of 2017 on the file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM APHC010088002024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 497 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section 84 (2) of the APCHRI And Endowments Act, 1987, the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.A No.582 of 2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: 1. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. 2. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. ...Petitioners AND 1. Talluri Lakshmana Rao, (Died) 2. Talluri Lakshmi Venkata Satya Suresh, S/o. Late Lakshmana Rao, Age not known, R/o. D.No. 8/312, 6th lane, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. ^7 Aged 63 years, R/o. 3. Battula Uma Vani, W/o. Satyanarayana Hyderabad. Aged about 61 Years, R/p. Boggavarapu Indira, W/o.Prasad D.No.8/312, 5th Lane, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna 4. District. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada Krishna District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Decree and Order Dt.31.07.2023 in O.A No. 582 of 2017 on the file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri. VV N NARASIMHAM APHC010088032024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 498 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section 84(2) of the APCHRI and Endowments Act, 1987, the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.ANo.576 of 2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: 1. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep by its Executive Officer. 2. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by it's Executive Officer. / ...Appellants AND 1. Talluri Lakshmi Venkata Satya Suresh Kumar, S/o. Lakshmana Rao R/o. D.No. 2-26, Polukonda Village Age not known Mandal, Krishna District. Nandiwada 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada Krishna District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order and Decree Dt.31.07.2023 in O.A No. 576 of 2017 passed by the A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. V V N NARASIMHAM APHC010140412024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 499 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section 84(2) of the APCHRI and Endowments Act, 1987, the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.ANo.585 of2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: 1. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by it's Executive Officer. 2. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, , Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. ...Petitioners AND 1. Talluri Lakshmana Rao, (Died) 2. Talluri Lakshmi Venkata Satya Suresh, S/o. Late Lakshmana Rao, Age not known, R/o. D.No. 8/312, 6th lane, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. Aged 63 years, R/o. 3. Battula Uma Vani, W/o. Satyanarayana, Hyderabad. Aged about 61 Years, R/o. 4. Boggavarapu Indira, W/o.Prasad, 5th Lane, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna D.No.8/312, District. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada Krishna District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Decree and Order Dt.31.07.2023 in O.A No. 585 of 2017 on the > file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. V V N NARASIMHAM APHC010088052024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 506 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section 84(2) of the APCHRI and Endowments Act, 1987, the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.ANo.581 of2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: 1. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. 2. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. ...Petitioners AND 1. Yarlagadda Nagamani, W/o. Govardhan Rao, Age not known, R/o. D.No. 2-198/2, Dronakulavari Street, Gudivada, Krishna District. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada Krishna District. ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Decree and Order Dt.31.07.2023 in O.A No. 581 of 2017 on the file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM APHC010088022024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 507 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section 84(2) of the APCHRI and Endowments Act. 1987, the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.ANo.568 of2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by it's Executive Officer. 1. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by it's Executive Officer 2. ...Petitioners AND Kodali Sri Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Aijuna Rao, Aged about 52 Years, R/o. D.No. 10-154, 2nd Line, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada, Krishna District. 1. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada Krishna District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Decree and Order Dt.31.07.2023 in O.A No. 568 of 2017 on the file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATl RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM APHC010088042024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 508 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section 84(2) of the APCHRI and Endowments Act, 1987, the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.ANo.569 of 2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: 1. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. 2. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. ...Appellants AND 1. Kodali Nageswara Rao, S/o. Arjuna Rao, Aged not known, R/o. D.No. 10-154, 2nd Line, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada, Krishna District. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to - suspend the Order and Decree Dt.31.07.2023 in O.ANo. 589 of 2017 the file Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. ofA.P Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA for the Respondents: SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM Counsel APHC010088042024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 509 OF 2024; 84(2) of the APCHRl and Endowments Act, 1987, passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in Appeel Under Section the Order and Decree i O.ANo.583 of 2017 dated 31.07.2023. Between: 1. Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple it's Executive Officer. 2. Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, it's Executive Officer. Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by Gudivada, Krishna District, Rep. by ...Petitioners AND ■ , Age not known, R/o. D.No. 10- Near Narayana School, Gudivada, Krishna 1. Donepudi Aruna, W/o. Nageswara Rao 148/A, Rajendra Nagar, District. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to O.A No. 583 of 2017 on the in the affidavit filed in suspend the Decree and Order Dt.31.07.2023 in file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. ALAPATI VIVEKANANDA APHC010226312025 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI NO: 319 OF 2025 of the APCHRI and Endowments Act, 1987me Decree and Order passed in O.A No. 2753 of 2010 (Old O.A No. Ill of 2010) dt.27.01.2025 passed by the A.P Endowments Tribunal Amaravathi Appeal Under Section 84(2) at Pedakakani. Between: Sri Chudukudutamma Charities District, Rep by its Executive Officer. Eluru Taluq and Mandal, Powerpet, Eluru ...Petitioner AND Appala Raju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, Age 55 Appala Raju Military Hotel, GNT Road, Powerpet, Chekuri Gopala Krishna years, D.N0.22C-1-48, Eluru, Eluru District. ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to of the Decree and Order dispense with filing of the certified/original copy passed in O.A No. 2753 of 2010 (Old O.A No. Ill of 2010), dt.27.01.2025 by Amaravathi at Pedakakani and Xerox copy of the A.P Endowments Tribunal the Decree and Order passed in 2010), dt.27.01.2025 by Pedakakani. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI. A RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following COMMON order: O.A No. 2753 of 2010 (Old O.A No. Ill of the A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at APHC010086902024 k IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL miscellaneous APPEAL Nos:496. 497, 498. 499. 506, 507. 508. 509 of 2024 and 319 of 2025 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 496/2024 Between: 1.SRI BHEEMESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP BY IT'S EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. SRI VENU GOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP BY IT'S EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...APPELLANT{S) AND 1.KODALI VINDHYARANI, W/6. ARJUNA RAO, AGE NOT,KNOWN, R/0. D.NO. 10-154, 2ND LINE, RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): againstorderspleased to allow the Appeal Under Section Appeal by setting aside the Order and Decree passed by A.P Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani in O.A No.562 of 2017 dated 31.07.2023 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 praying that in the Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. L 2 nu^t pleased to condone the delay of m31 0^20?"/ n a ^99"®''®'^ ‘ii® Oi-der and Decree Dt,31.07.2023 ,n O.A No. 562 of 2017 passed by the Learned f" Pedakakani and to receive the appeal on file in the interests of justice and to lA NO: 2 OF 207^ A.P pass Petition under Section 151 .herrCouV""'b" ''e petition" tlM^riavf ®°e'^°ee the delay of pass '^presenting the appeal CMA No.496 of 2024 and to lA NO: 3 OF 2094 r<rs“ r? Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VVNNARASIMHAM 3 0 i. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos:496, 497. 498, 499, 506, 507. 508. 509 of 2024 and 319 of 2025 The Court made the following commonJudqment: In all these appeals, the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal are in challenge. Hence, this Court deems it fit to dispose of all these cases by way of common order. The appellants herein are Temples-lnstitutions. Initially, proceedings were instituted by the Assistant Commissioner, along with respective Institutions, under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act’) against the contesting respondents herein, for eviction and also damages for unauthorized use and occupation of respective properties. The said proceedings came to be contested and ultimately, the Tribunal has passed final orders dismissing the same. Assailing the aforesaid dismissal orders, present appeals are preferred under Section 84(2) of the Act. These appeals are preferred along with applications for condoning the delay in both presentation and re-presentation. After issuance of notices, the contesting respondents appeared and raised objection on maintainability of the appeals. 2. > 3. Heard SmtP.Radhika, learned counsel for appellants, Sri V.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel & Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents and learned Pleader for appeals for respondent-Assistant Government Commissioner. 4. As seen from the record, in all cases, original applications preferred by the appellants along with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the concerned temples under Section 83 of the Act and the same came to be dismissed. Assailing the respective dismissal orders, present appeals are preferred under Section 84(2) of the Act. For better appreciation of the issue, it is opt to refer following provisions; were Section 83.Encroachment by persons on land building belonging to charitable or religious endowment and the eviction of or institution or encroachers;- (1) Where the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, either suomotu or upon a complaint made by the trustee has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as ‘encroacher') any land, building, tank, well, spring - water-course or any space belonging to the institution or endowment, wherever situated or deemed as an encroacher under any of the provisions of this Act, the Assistant Commissioner shall report the fact together with relevant particulars to the 3 [Endowments Tribunal] having jurisdiction over the division in which the institution or endowment is situated. or Explanation:- For the purpose of this Chapter the expression ‘encroacher’ shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or 5 4 cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it. (2^ Where on a perusal of the report received u^deVsub-section (1), the [Endowments Thbuna finds that there is a prima fade case of nohce to be served upon the encroacher a no ce particulars of the encroachment and calling certain date why an order cause specifying the him to show cause before a requiring him to remove theencroachment before the date soecified in the notice should not be made. A copy of th ^ shall also be sent to the trustee of the institution or on notice endowment concerned. sub-section (2) shall be (3) The notice referred to in served in such manner as may be prescribed. (4') Whereafter considering the objections, if any, of the encmS received durihg the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) and after conducting suc^eSr^ as may be prescribed, the [Endowments Trtounslll is satisfied that there has been an encroachment, [it] may, by order, require, the encroacher to remove the encroachment and deliver possession o the land or, building or space before the date specified in such order. encroached upon to the trustee The order of the [Endowments Tribunal] under sub- fectLn (4) shall be'in writing and shall contain the grounds on which he has passed the order. (6) During the pehdency of the proceedings the Endowments Tribunal] shall order the deposit such amount as may be speofied ^.'ijlies consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question in the manner prescribed. in 84.Mode of eviction on failure of removal of the encroachment as directed by e Endowments Tribunal - (1) Where within the period soecified in the order under sub-section (4) of section 83 the encroacher has not removed the has not vacated the land, building or space, the Assistant Pommissioner having jurisdiction over the sub-division maremTve the encroichment and obtaih possession of the land, building or space, encroached police assistance as may be necessary. Any Police Off cer Lose help is required for this Ph[P°®f Asste ant render the necessary help to the Assistant Section to Commissioner. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by order of the Endowments Tribunal under 6 % sub-section (4) of section 83 from preferring an appeal before the High Court to establish that the Charitable or religious Institution or Endowment has no title to the land building or space: Provided that no appeal shall be preferred after expiry of ninety days from the date of receipt of the order under sub-section (4) of section 83: Provided further that no such appeal shall be preferred bv a person who is let into the possession of the land^ building or space, or who is a lessee, licencee mortgagee, of the institution or endowment. Section 91 Revision:The High Court record of any case- which has been decided by a court and in which no appeal lies thereto; which has been decided by the District Court in an appeal under section 88; which has been decided by the Government in an appeal under section 90; or which has been decided by the Government under sub-section (1) of section 28.8 Which has been decided by the Tribunal under Section 83(6) of the Act. T k Government [or Endowments Tribunal] appears, - (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or them by law; mi n or may call for the (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (V) Endowment (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as or their it thinks fit. [Note: Inserted by Act No.36 of 2023, w.e.f.26.06.2023] =nH P''3desh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions And Tribunal Rules, 2010. Endowments 26. Proceeding before the Tribunal: (b) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules and in any other Rules- 7 The order of the Endowments Tribunal passed under Section 83 is final unless a revision is maintained before the High Court within thirty days from the date of the order. The principal Act has later been amended by Act No.36 of (V) 5. 2023 with effect from 26.06.2023, by which Section 83 came to be substituted with new scheme and Sections 84 to 86 came to be omitted. Likewise, Section 91 (v) came to be inserted. The original unamended Section 83 of the Act provides that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner make a complaint before the Tribunal for declaration of any person to be an encroacher and seek eviction, besides claiming other damages. The Tribunal, in turn, was supposed to decide the matter in accordance with the procedure set out'therein and pass final orders under Sub Section 6. (5). Section 84 provides mode of eviction on failure of removal of encroachments as directed by the Tribunal. Sub Section (1) thereto 7. empowers the Assistant Commissioner to seek police assistance in case the encroacher does not remove the encroachments and vacate the subject property. However, Sub Section (2) of Section 84 provides for an appeal against the orders of Endowments Tribunal under Section 83(4) of the Act before this Court, in case the person aggrieved intends to establish that the Institutions failed to have proper title to the subject property. The second proviso also provides that only such of those persons who dispute the title of 8 thelnstitutions alone have right of appeal, but not for those who in possession of the subject property on the basis as lessee, licensee, mortgagee of the Institutions. were 8. Section 91 of the Act confersrevisional jurisdiction Court in certain scenarios.One such scenario being that where no appeal has been provided against the orders of the Tribunal, revision lies before this Court. The expression used in Section 91 (i) of the Act refers to decision made by the Court. This apparently unamended provision, when even before the Tribunal came to be created and all endowment disputes were being adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner, appealsiie thereafter to the district Court. on this was 9. Inline with the same. Rule 26 (b)(v) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Tribunal Rules, Endowments 2010 (hereinafter for short referred to ‘Rules’jprovides revision to be filed before this Court against the order of Endowments Tribunal passed under Section 83, within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. 10. Reading of above provisions would clearly indicate that against an order of dismissal of O.A. instituted by appellants under Section 83, no appeal is provided under the scheme of the Act. Section 84(2) of the Act provided for an appeal only to the aggrieved persons who have been ordered for eviction and still dispute the title of the Institutions. For the Institutions, who are unsuccessful before as 9 the Tribunal, the only remedy provided is to prefer revision under Section 91 (i) before this Court, as the Institutions cannot be left with no remedy. 11. Though the language employed under Section 91 (i) of the Act refers to Court, in the context of subsequent legislative changes, an appeal has been bestowed to this Court, and district Court has been ousted from such jurisdiction. It has to be implied that against an order passed by the Tribunal, where there is no further appeal provided, the aggrieved party has to necessarily prefer revision as contemplated under Section 91 of the Act. 12. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.7577 of 2008 and batch, dated 24.11.2022, while interpreting Sections 83 and 84 of the Act vis-a-vis the right of a pure encroacher to file appeal under Section 84(2), held that an appeal under Section 84(2) is maintainable only by person who disputes the title to the land as claimed by temple, and not for persons who merely are encroachers. Paragraph Nos.8,9 and 10 of the said judgment read as under: “...8. A conjoint reading of provisions contained in Section 83 and 84 of the Act, particularly sub-section (4) of Section 83 read with sub-section (2) of Section 84 would manifest two situations. Firstly, that an appeal can be preferred by any person aggrieved by the order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) of Section 83 of the Act, to establish that the Charitable or religious Institution or Endowment has no title to the land, building or space; secondly, that a rank encroacher who is not asserting that the temple has no title to ■ the land, cannot prefer an appeal. To maintain an appeal under Section 84(2) of the Act, an averment by the person 10 1 aggrieved that the temple or religious institution has no title to the land, building or space is pre-requisite. 9. In the first order passed by the learned single Judge in the year 2020 also, it is observed that a person who disputes the title of the temple can only prefer the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, although, learned single Judge has added one more line, which is not provided in the Statute, that the person should also assert that he is the owner of the property. This is not the requirement of law in terms of Section 84 (2) of the Act. Be that as it may, the first order in C.M.A.(SR)No.26086 of 2020 also in principle agrees with the legal position that the person who disputes the title of the temple can only prefer an appeal and that the other set of persons, who are only encroachers are not provided any remedy under the Act. 10. Both the Judges have taken concurrent view on this issue that a pure encroacher is not provided any right of appeal under the Act and that such remedy of appeal is available only when the person aggrieved is objecting to the title of the endowment...” Learned counsel for appellants has referred to judgment of this Court passed in The Executive Officer, Group Tempies v. Sri Sakhiya Matt rep. by ByragiTulasabai and others ^, while considering the aspect of maintainability of appeal before the district Court, though not in direct context, made observation of paragraph No. 12 as follows; 13. “...Admittedly, under the earlier legislation, appeals were provided only to the District Court but not straight to the High Court. Having regard to the said controversy, it cannot be said that they have intended to take away the statutory power of right of appeal to this Court. A right of appeal necessarily has to be provided by a statute and cannot be implied under any circumstances. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the appeal, as has been filed and disposed of before the District Court, is not maintainable and necessarily, the respondent has to approach this Court alone. Further, it is to be noted that even under Section 91 of the Act, this Court is conferred \ '(2010)08 APCK 0027 r 11 withpowers of revision only against the orders, where no appeal isprovided, but not otherwise...” There is no quarrel with respect to aforesaid proposition. As there is no appeal, as such, provided against the orders of dismissal under Section 83, the only remedy available would be to prefer revision under Section 91 (i) of the Act read with Rule 26 (v) of the Rules. f .. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that these appeals ought not to have been preferred under Section 84{2), which is available only for private parties, who dispute the title of the Institutions as held by the Division Bench {supra). 15. 16. Upholding the objections raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1, this Court finds that these appeals are clearly not maintainable. However, since the institutions have been pursuing these appeals under mistaken impression, the period from the institution till the same are now decided is entitled to be claimed for exemption in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, while preferring revision under Section 91 (i) of the Act read with Rule 26 of the Rules. 17. Accordingly, these Appeals are dismissed along with applications for condoning the delay in both presentation and re presentation, granting liberty to the appellants to prefer revision in accordance with provisions of the Act.There shall be no order as to costs. 12 The Registry is henceforth directed to ensure that any appeal preferred by the Institution against orders of dismissal under Section 83(4) of the Act shall be entertained only as a revision under Section 91 (i) of the Act read with Rule 26 of the Rules, but not as civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 84(2) of the Act. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall standclosed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT R^ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani. (with records) 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Krishna Dfstflet 3. The RegisUarf(Jiudicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Nelapadu. 4. One CC to M/s. Pulipati Radhika Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. A. Radha Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to M/s. Alapati Vivekananda, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. VV N Narasimham Advocate [OPUC] 8. The V.R Section, Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 9. Two CD Copies PR vna '*Z COURT i t * . » • . DATED:04/08/2025 i JUDGMENT CMA No’s; 496,497,498,499,506,507,508,509 OF 2024 and 319 of 2025 i = (11 SEP 2025 ^ . Current Sectton C9, % DISMISSING THE CMA’S