JUDGMENT In this batch of six writ petitions, claims of one form, or the other, are made in respect of different extents of land, owned by a religious endowment, by name, Seethanna Chalivendram (for short 'the Institution'). Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions are as under: One Sri Mallavarapu Seethanna was running a Chalivendram, near Venkatachalam village of Nellore District, to cater to the needs of the travelling public. An extent of AC.399.70 cents of Kanupuru Bit-1 was endowed to the Chalivendram. While the petitioners in W.P.No.20720 of 2007 state that the land was endowed by the erstwhile Nawabs of Arcot, according to the petitioners in W.P.No.19562 of 2007, the endowment was made by Karnataka Nawabs. The land in various bits is said to be under the enjoyment of the petitioners, and their ancestors. The revenue was being collected by Seethanna, and after his death, by his son, Mallavarapu Rama Rao. It is also pleaded that when Rama Rao stopped collecting revenue, the petitioners and others started paying the revenue to the Government. 3. Vide proceedings dated 14-11-1970, the Chalivendram was brought under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Act'). Rama Rao challenged the taking over of the Institution by the Endowments Department, and filed OANo.53 of 1976 under Section 77 of the 1966 Act, before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur. The O.A. was dismissed, and thereupon, Rama Rao filed O.S.No.6 of 1981 in the Court of District Judge, Nellore. The suit was also dismissed, and A.S.No.2133 of 1988 was filed before this Court. The appeal is said to have been dismissed for default, and the judgment in O.S.No.6 of 1981 has become final. 4. When the officials of the Endowments Department and the Executive Officer of the Institution initiated steps for eviction of the unauthorized occupants, O.S.Nos. 273 of 1988 and batch, were filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, by some of the occupants, for the relief of declaration, that they are the ryots of Venkatachalam Village, and are entitled to Kudivaram rights in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for. 273 of 1988 and batch, were filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, by some of the occupants, for the relief of declaration, that they are the ryots of Venkatachalam Village, and are entitled to Kudivaram rights in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for. Through a common judgment dated 13-07-1998, the trial Court dismissed the suits holding that the plaintiffs in the suits are bound by the judgment in O.S.No.6 of 1981, filed by Sri Rama Rao. Some of the aggrieved persons are said to have filed appeals before this Court, being A.S.Nos.320 of 1999, and batch. 5. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.19562 and 20720 of 2007 are said to be the occupants and enjoyers of parts of the land, held by the Institution, or legal heirs of such occupants; whereas the petiti0ners in W.P.Nos.19572 and 20454 of 2007 are purchasers, either directly from the occupants, or their vendees. The grievance of the petitioners in these four writ petitions is, about the action of the Authorities of the Endowments Department and the Institution, trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands and structures in their possession. 6. The petitioners in W.P.No.15816 of 2007 are the same, as those in W.P.No.19562 of 2007. This writ petition is filed alleging that the Sub-Inspector of Police Venkatachalam Police Station, is refusing to take action against the unlawful activities of certain persons, who were trying to dispossess and interfere with the rights of the petitioners, over the land. W.P.No.4115 of 2008 is filed by some of the petitioners in the other writ petitions, challenging the proceedings dated 02-08-2007, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, in exercise of power under Section 85 of the Act 30 of 1987, directing eviction of the encroachers, over the land, belonging to the Institution. 7. The petitioners contend that valuable rights have accrued to them, on account of long standing possession of themselves, or their predecessors, and the respondents have no right to interfere with their possession. They also complain that, at no point of time, they were put on notice, in the context of bringing the Institution under the purview of Endowments Department, or for trying to evict them. It is urged that the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act was not followed, and hence, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. It is urged that the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act was not followed, and hence, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. 8. A counter-affidavit is filed in W.P.No.20454 of 2007, and on behalf of the respondents, a request is made, to treat the same as holding good, as regards other writ petitions also. A series of events are mentioned, commencing from endowment of the property, to the take over of the Institution, under the 1966 Act. It is pleaded that the petitioners did not derive any right over the land in question, and all of them are liable to be evicted. 9. Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, led the batch. He submits that the Institution, at its inception, was discharging the secular functions, unrelated to any religious community, and the very fact that a Muslim Nawab had endowed the property to an Institution, maintained by Hindus; vouches for its character. He contends that different extents of the property endowed to the Institution, were being enjoyed by the ryots in the locality, subject to payment of revenue, and with the abolition of Inams, the ryots are entitled to be granted ryotwari pattas. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the taking over of the Institution, by the Endowments Department, was totally untenable and unconstitutional. He further contends that, even assuming that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of any property, held by any Institution, or endowment, the only course open to the respondents was, to institute proceedings, such as those, under Section 83 of the 1987 Act. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Institution, have opposed the writ petitions. They submit that apart from rendering secular service, the Institution owns and manages Hindu Temples, and at no point of time, the character of the Institution was in doubt. They contend that there is some uncertainty, as to the manner in which, the property was endowed, but assuming that it was done by a Muslim Nawab, the character of the Institution does not undergo any change. They contend that there is some uncertainty, as to the manner in which, the property was endowed, but assuming that it was done by a Muslim Nawab, the character of the Institution does not undergo any change. Learned counsel submit that an effort was made by one of the descendents of the founder of the Institution, to challenge the take over by the Endowments Department, and he was not successful, at any stage of the proceedings, right from the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, to this Court. They further contend that at the most, the petitioners, or their predecessors in-title would answer the description of tenants, and by operation of Section 82 of the Act, all such tenancies stood terminated. Learned counsel submit that none of the petitioners have any right to continue in possession of the land, and that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. At the outset, the contention advanced on behalf of some of the petitioners, on the basis of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short the 'Inams Act') , needs to be dealt with. It is urged that the grant of land, made in favour of the Institutions, is an inam, within the meaning of Inams Act and consequent on the abolition of Inams, the occupants are entitled to be granted riotwari pattas. The question as to whether a particular piece of land partakes the character of an inam, has to be decided by the authority, constituted under the concerned enactment. It is not even pleaded by the petitioners that they have ever approached the authority under the Inams Act, either for determination of the character of the land, or for recognition of their rights. More than half a century had elapsed, ever since the said Act came into force. At this length of time, the petitioners cannot be permitted to urge the grounds referable to that enactment, directly before this Court. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners, in this regard, cannot be accepted. 12. With slight variations as to the manner and extent, the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have accepted the authority or the entitlement of the lineal descendent of the founder of the Institution. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners, in this regard, cannot be accepted. 12. With slight variations as to the manner and extent, the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have accepted the authority or the entitlement of the lineal descendent of the founder of the Institution. In the affidavits filed in W.P.Nos.19562 and 20720 of 2007, it is categorically admitted that the petitioners were paying cist to one Sri Malavarapu Rama Rao, s/o. M. Seethanna. It is also pleaded that after Mr.Rama Rao stopped collecting rents, they started paying cist to the Government. Mere payment of Gist to the Government does not bring about any change in the character of a land. The nature of rights, which may accrue to the petitioners, would certainly depend upon those, possessed or held by Rama Rao. 13. It is a matter of record that after the Endowments Department took over the Institution in the year 1970, Rama Rao instituted proceedings under Section 77 of the 1966 Act, before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur. He obviously wanted to claim rights in himself. He opened another front of proceedings with the revenue authorities, claiming exclusive rights. a.p.No.53 of 1976 filed by Rama Rao was dismissed, and the order of dismissal was challenged by filing a.S.No.6 of 1981, in the Court of District Judge, Nellore. The suit was also dismissed on 20-04-1992. Though an appeal was preferred to this Court, it is said to have been dismissed for default. With that, the take over of the Institution by the Endowments Department became conclusive. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioners to claim independent rights, or to ignore the take over of the Institution, vide proceedings dated 14-11-1970. 14. Another aspect of the matter is that, some of the persons similarly situated as the petitioners filed separate suits, being a.S.Nos.273 of 1988 and batch before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. Comprehensive relief in the form of declaration and consequential injunction was prayed for. The suits were dismissed through an elaborate judgment of the trial Court on 13-07-1998. It is stated that in A.S.No.320 of 1999 filed against one of the suits, an order of interim injunction was passed on 08-04-1999. It is not known as to whether any appeals were filed vis-a-vis the decrees in other suits. The suits were dismissed through an elaborate judgment of the trial Court on 13-07-1998. It is stated that in A.S.No.320 of 1999 filed against one of the suits, an order of interim injunction was passed on 08-04-1999. It is not known as to whether any appeals were filed vis-a-vis the decrees in other suits. Be that as it may, having not chosen to file any suits for declaration, the petitioners cannot seek such a protection, that too, in the writ petition. 15. Though the petitioners in W.P. Nos.19572 and 20454 of 2007 claimed ownership rights on the strength of purchases, said to have been made by them, they cannot have a better title than what their ultimate predecessors had. 16. The different extents of the land, owned by the Institution, were being cultivated by various farmers, at the most in the capacity of tenants, as the sales or other transfers effected by such persons would not bind the Institution. Even assuming that the successors or transferees are entitled for the same rights, as the original tenants or occupants, the tenancies stood terminated by operation of Section 82 of the 1987 Act. From this point of view also, the relief claimed by the petitioners for protection of their possession cannot be granted. 17. W.P.No.15816 of 2007 is filed complaining that the Station House Officer of the local Police Station, is not taking any steps, when the petitioners filed complaints, alleging illegal interference with their possession by some intruders. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Satyanarayana v. S.H.D., P. Santhoshnagar. 18. Whenever the possession of an individual over any property is threatened, or interfered with, the aggrieved party has to approach the civil Court, for the relief of perpetual injunction. It is not even necessary that a person must be an absolute owner, to protect his possession. To protect possession over property, pending the disposal of the suit, he can seek the remedy under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. In case an order of temporary injunction is violated, by the respondents therein, proceedings for taking action against such violator can be instituted, under Order itself. Alternatively, a separate application can be filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., with a prayer to grant Police aid, for enforcing the order of temporary injunction. Alternatively, a separate application can be filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., with a prayer to grant Police aid, for enforcing the order of temporary injunction. The power of the Civil Court virtually stands exhausted, with the grant of Police aid. For actual implementation of an order, granting Police aid, an individual has no way, except to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 19. If one looks at the facts of the judgment in Satayanarayana's case (supra), it becomes clear that the petitioner therein filed O.S.No.3770 of 1980, in the Court of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of perpetual injunction. In I.A.No.3510 of 1981, an order of temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court, and the same was confirmed by the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.M.A.No.189 of 1981. C.R.P.No.3258 of 1981 filed against the order of C.MA was dismissed. It was at that stage, that the petitioners therein filed an application before the Civil Court for Police protection. Such an order was granted and the writ petition was filed to seek a direction to the Police Officials to enforce the order passed by the trial Court. The writ petition was dismissed and in the writ appeal, the Division Bench observed as under: "...Nothing more can be a higher purpose than the enforcement of the orders of the civil court and that of the " High Court which confirms or recognizes the rights of a party. By any interpretation of the provisions of C.P.C. the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce its own orders or the orders of the Civil Court cannot be curtailed. As observed by the Supreme Court in T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa ( AIR 1954 SC 440 ) the High Court, in issuing directions, orders and writs under Art.226 can travel beyond the contents of the writs which are normally issued as writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, provided the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English Law, are not transgressed. The Supreme Court also observed that the very language of Art.226 makes it clear that in the exercise of power under Article 226, our High Courts need not feel oppressed by the procedural technicalities of the English Writ..." At another place, the Division Bench observed; "...We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that this court has ample jurisdiction, to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the police within the State to enforce the orders of the civil court as confirmed by the High Court in a civil revision petition and maintain the rule of law..." 20. From this it is becomes clear that the occasion for this Court to issue directions to the Police authorities, to protect the possession of a citizen would arise, only when proceedings before the competent Civil Court are instituted, and the orders passed therein are not honoured by the Police. In the cases on hand, the petitioners did not even approach the Civil Court, much less, for grant of any orders of temporary injunction. Therefore, the question of issuing any directions to the Station House Officer, does not arise. 21. In W.P.No.4115 of 2008, the challenge is to the order dated 02-08-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, in exercise of power under Section 85 of the Act. A perusal of the same discloses that the Executive Officer of the Institution had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, complaining that a group of about 1,000 persons, under the leadership of Mr. M.Raja o Kishore, Syed Kamruddin, Pottem Niranjan Rao, Venkatachalam B.Ed College 3 Authorities, and one Mr. Malyadri, are either encroaching, or were trying to encroach the 3 land. The Deputy Commissioner directed that in case the persons mentioned in the order do not remove the encroachments and deliver possession of the land, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is authorized to resume possession, if necessary by taking the help of police. The petitioners are not able to demonstrate as to how the said order is illegal. 22. In the recent past, properties held by the religious endowments, particularly the agricultural lands, have become very soft targets of encroachments by organized groups, vested interests and in some cases, by the agencies of the Government itself. The very object of the public spirited and noble individuals in endowing valuable properties for effective maintenance of endowments and institutions is being defeated. The very object of the public spirited and noble individuals in endowing valuable properties for effective maintenance of endowments and institutions is being defeated. The concept, that the property held by endowment would be, for the benefit of the community at large, is ignored by selfish and greedy individuals and agencies. They are taking advantage of the fact that the properties of such institutions are not protected with the same vigour and interest, as those owned by private individuals. In the recent past, this Court had to intervene in public interest litigations, and direct that no property held by the religious endowments and institutions shall be alienated even by the Government, and the writ petitions are pending adjudication. It is somewhat heartening to note that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, had at least, recognized the statutory obligation and issued necessary directions for protection of the property. 23. It is not as if the persons, who are said in enjoyment of the property, owned by endowment or institution, are without remedies. They could have approached the authorities under the Act, concerned enactment, or a civil court, for adjudication of their rights. No one can claim the prerogative or privilege of squatting or encroaching the properties of religious institutions, and thwart the attempts made by the authorities, to prevent such unlawful activities. The petitioners do not claim to have approached any authorities to seek enforcement of their rights. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. 24. Further, after the possession of the land is resumed, and in case the institution intends to put the land to agricultural use, auction of leasehold rights has to be conducted. In such case, the petitioners can offer their bids, or tenders, in respect of the lands held by them. In the event of their being emerging as the highest bidders, or their being in a position to offer the amount, that is fetched as highest bid, fresh leases can be granted in their favour. 25. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is directed that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, dated 02-08-2007 shall be enforced, and the land resumed to the institution, shall be dealt with, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987. 26. There shall be no order as to costs.