APHC010558102023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 489/2023 Between: 1. G PEDA KOTAYYA, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O D.NO. 8-2-191, PROP. TATA AUTO MECHANIC SHED, OPP TO SRI RAGHAVA KALAYANMANDAPAM, RANGANAYAKULAPETA, NELLORE CITY. AND ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. SMT VEMAGUNTA BUJJAMMA SATRAM, COLLOQUIALLY CALLED AS SRI BUJJAMMA SATRAM, RANGANAYAKULAPETA, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, REP. IT'S EXECUTIVE OFFICER ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersbegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Order and decree dated 28.06.2023 passed in O.A No 527 of 2017 on the file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to condone delay of 9 days in preferring the appeal in the interests of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 pleased to suspend the order dated 28.06.2023 passed in O.A.No.527 of 2017 on the file of the court of the A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, pending disposal of the main C.M.A., and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. shaik omer qaiyum Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.489 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) assailing order dated 28.06.2023 passed in O.A. No.527 of 2017 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) The appellant herein is respondent before the tribunal, who by virtue of the final orders of tribunal has been directed to vacate and surrender vacant possession of schedule property to the institution. (b) The respondents herein claiming to be owners of an extent of 150 square yards of site along with structures therein having Door No.8-2-191, Opposite to Sri Raghava Kalyana Mandapam, Ranganayakulapet, Nellore City, have preferred present O.A. under Section 83 of the Act seeking eviction of the appellant herein from the aforesaid property and also claiming damages 2 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 @₹15,000/- per month from the date of petition till order of eviction besides past damages for three preceding years of institution of the petition. (c) The institution claimed that it was owning an extent of 1600 square yards in aforesaid door number, which initially was leased out to one Dodla Srinivasa Reddy, s/o.Balarami Reddy, by virtue of registered lease deed No.319/1987 for a period of 20 years from 01.06.1985 to 31.05.2005. Even prior to that, the subject property was on lease under registered lease deed vide Doc.No.1269/1945 for a period of 20 years from 01.06.1945 and later, renewed by executing yet another lease deed No.2238/1965 for a further period of 20 years. In all, the said subject property was on lease from 01.06.1945 till 31.05.2005. Though the lease got expired, the lessee has unauthorizedly inducted third parties into the subject property. Since then, the institution has been deprived of lease rentals, therefore, the present application came to be filed to declare the respondent before tribunal as encroacher and for eviction thereof, besides claiming for damages. (d) The O.A. came to be opposed by the respondent by filing the counter, inter alia, taking stand that the subject property does not belong to the institution or endowments department and therefore, 3 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 the very proceedings itself was not maintainable and tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the same. The respondent further pleaded that they have been in occupation and possession of subject property for more than 30 years, thereby, they perfected title to the schedule property by adverse possession, and to support the possession, the tax receipts and power bills were relied upon. (e) Upon considering the material available on record, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the respondent is an encroacher under Section 83 of Act 30/1987 and if so, is he liable to be evicted and pay damages if any? 2) To what relief? (f) To support the claim of institution, its Executive Officer came to be examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of respondent, he has got examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3. (g) The tribunal after elaborate discussion and consideration of the evidence on record has ultimately come to conclusion that the institution has clinchingly established its right over the property and in coming to such conclusion, tribunal has heavily placed reliance 4 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 on the register maintained under section 43 of the Act, which included the subject property, besides Exs.P5 to P7, which are registered lease deeds executed by the institution in favour of the initial lessee. Though the respondent has taken stand that he perfected title in view of adverse possession, the same came to be rejected by holding that an unauthorized occupation is not entitled to claim adverse possession since the subject lands belong to endowments/temple. In the absence of any contra evidence produced by the respondent to disbelieve the evidence of the institution that it has right and title over subject property, the tribunal has ultimately declared the respondent as encroacher and thereby, ordered eviction and also directed the respondent to pay ₹15,000/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the said property from the date of filing petition, till delivery of property besides for the preceding 3 years of the date of filing of O.A. (h) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. 4. This Court, by interim order dated 07.11.2023, has suspended operation of the impugned judgment, however, on condition of depositing 1/4th of the damages awarded within a period of four weeks from that date, failing which, it was made clear 5 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 that the interim order shall stand vacated. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that, on account of noncompliance of the said order, as the interim order stood vacated automatically without reference to further orders of this Court, necessary steps have been taken by the institution for eviction and accordingly, the respondent has been duly vacated, and now possession vests with the Institution. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that tribunal has not considered the effect of Ex.R3, which are online copies of 1B and ROR in relation to Survey Nos.405 and 318, which evidently were standing in the name of one Pasupelleti Seenaiah, therefore, the said property clearly was not belonging to the institution, therefore, the very initiation of proceedings itself are without jurisdiction. He further contended that the subject property, which the institution claims is different from that of the property where the appellant has been in occupation, so the institution cannot maintain claim against appellant. These crucial aspects of the matter were not properly appreciated and dealt with by the tribunal in the impugned order, therefore, the same suffers from clear perversity. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the institution supported the impugned order by contending that the tribunal has clearly on 6 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 appreciation of the evidence on record has come to definitive conclusion with supporting reasons that the subject property belongs to the institution but not the respondent and further that in the absence of any cogent evidence and material adduced by the respondent that he had any right to continue or be in possession of the subject property, the tribunal has rightly declared him to be an encroacher and for having used for his benefit the damages were assessed and accordingly, ordered to be paid, which do not suffer from any infirmity, therefore, the order does not call for any interference. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 8. The institution claims to be owner of the subject property. The respondent has been alleged to be in occupation of the same without any right or authority, therefore, proceedings came to be initiated to declare him as encroacher and also claimed damages for unauthorized usage. Section 83 of the Act contemplates initiation of such proceedings. To support the case of institution besides examining its Executive Officer as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 came to be marked. Since it is the case of the institution that subject property belongs to it, burden of proof lies on it to demonstrate such right. Ex.P4 is the copy of register maintained 7 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 under Section 43 of the Act and Exs.P5 to P7 are the registered lease deeds executed by institution granting subject property on lease. The tribunal, by referring to aforesaid evidence, in particular Ex.P4, has come to conclusion that subject property belongs to the institution. Section 43 of the Act contemplates that any property belonging to endowments or temples should be registered as provided therein and once the properties are entered in such register, there lies a presumption that the same belongs to the endowments/temples, unless contrary is proved. The tribunal, on appreciation of aforesaid evidence, has rightly come to conclusion that the institution has discharged its official burden of proof that subject property belongs to the temple. 9. Per contra, as the respondent has disputed the title of institution besides claiming that the subject property is a private property. That in support thereof, except for marking Ex.R3, which is a copy of 1B and ROR issued in favour of one Mr.Pasupelleti Seenaiah, no other evidence was let in. As burden of proving above got shifted to the respondent, the evidence brought on record was found to be insufficient, rightly so. The respondent has also taken a stand that the subject property, which is sought to be vacated, is different from the one claimed by institution. When such 8 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 a dispute is raised by the respondent, it is for him to establish and demonstrate that there is a dispute of identity of the property. The tribunal dealing with the said issue has clearly recorded finding that in the absence of any steps forth coming seeking survey of the land to ascertain as to whether the property which respondents claim to be in possession and the subject O.A. property to be not one and the same, as such, plea has been set up by the respondent, the said contention deserved rejection. This Court is also in agreement with the reasoning and finding of the tribunal. When the respondent has taken a specific plea regarding the identity of property, it was for him to seek for survey and establish the said factum. This Court is also required to take judicial notice of the fact that the respondent has already vacated the subject property, in view of noncompliance with the interim directions granted. Though the same by itself would not disentitle him to canvass the appeal on merits, but definitely the intervening developments would have bearing on the issues on hand while deciding the present appeal. The tribunal, on overall appreciation of evidence on record, has rendered definite findings on all the issues that have been canvassed, including that of the title and possession and right of respondent to continue in the subject property, which are supported 9 CGR, J CMA. No.489 of 2023 by sound reasoning. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such finding of facts. Unless the findings are shown to be clearly erroneous and shockingly perverse, normally, the appellate court should not substitute its views. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 15.10.2025 SS