JUDGMENT : The petitioner-an Executive Officer, Group Temples, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 15.02.2007 in C.M.A.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam, passed against the order dated 18.06.2002 in O.A.No.136 of 1992 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 {“the Act” for brevity}, for declaration that the Sakhiya Mutt where Anjaneya Swamy temple is situated in Survey No.316/4 corresponding T.S.No.639 of China Bondilipuram, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, as a private temple intended for worship. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are that in the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 87 (c) of the Act, he sought a declaration and the same was contested by the petitioner herein denying all private proprietary rights but only as a public temple. Initially, after holding an enquiry where both the sides adduced evidence, the Deputy Commissioner did not find favour with the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the same, holding that it is only a public temple. As against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, Srikakulam, purportedly under the very same provision assailing the correctness of the said order. After hearing both the sides, the said appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge, Srikakulam, as per the order dated 15.02.2007. Against this order, the petitioner preferred the present revision. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, without canvassing on the merits, raised a preliminary objection as to the very maintainability of the appeal filed before the District Judge, Srikakulam. He contended that having regard to the provisions as contained under Act, 1987, the appeal lies only to this Court but not to the District Court. Earlier, the appeals lay to the District Courts but not now; hence, they could not be entertained by the District Courts. He contended that having regard to the provisions as contained under Act, 1987, the appeal lies only to this Court but not to the District Court. Earlier, the appeals lay to the District Courts but not now; hence, they could not be entertained by the District Courts. Sri A.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, sought to repel the aforesaid contention submitting that having regard to the provisions of the very Act and as against any orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, necessarily, the appeal has to be filed only before the District Court, since as contemplated under the very same provision no Tribunal has been constituted and therefore, it is the procedure under the repealed Act, which has come into action. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as to “whether on the facts and circumstances, the appeal as has been filed by the respondent herein before the District Court and ultimately, allowed setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner dismissing an application filed by the respondent purportedly under Section 87 (c) of the Act is maintainable”. In view of short compass, shorn of all the facts and merits, which are not necessary to be considered, it is admitted that the respondent herein has approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing a petition under Section 87 (c) of the Act. Having regard to the jurisdictional error complained against, this Court no doubt is conscious of the fact that the order in appeal, which is under challenge in this revision, is one on merits wholly. Yet, the question of maintainability takes precedence. For convenience sake, Section 87 (1) (c) and 87 (5) are extracted below. Section 87 (1) (c) of the Act reads as under. ‘Whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment;” Section 87 (5) of the Act reads as under. “Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub-sections the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquiry into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.” Admittedly, the said Tribunal is not constituted at the relevant point of time. At this juncture, however, learned Standing Counsel informed that the Endowments Tribunal has been constituted now and a District Judge is appointed and started functioning. At this juncture, however, learned Standing Counsel informed that the Endowments Tribunal has been constituted now and a District Judge is appointed and started functioning. Further, as regards Section 87 (5) of the Act, in the absence of the Endowments Tribunal being constituted, the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction can entertain appeals and enquire into all such matters and therefore, since there was no Tribunal, the respondent has approached the Deputy Commissioner and set up the claim and the same was ultimately dismissed. However, the fact remains that Section 88 of the Act contemplates right of appeal against the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act, which reads as under. “Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 and Section 119 may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of the decision prefer an appeal to the High Court.” Admittedly, the respondent has not approached this Court against the said order. Even though the Deputy Commissioner initially passed the said order, the fact remains that it is only in place of the Tribunal as contemplated under Section 87 of the Act. In the circumstances, it can safely be said that exclusively against all such orders passed under sub clauses (a) to (h) under Section 87 (1) of the Act, the appeal would lie only to this Court, irrespective of the fact that the same is presided over by the Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner is only exercising all such powers in lieu of the powers conferred on the Endowments Tribunal. Further, it is to be pointed out that even as against the different orders as contemplated under the legislation, appeals are provided to the High Court only but not to the District Court, though it lies under Section 83 read with Section 84 (2) of the Act, which contemplates the action against the encroachers and provides for the appeals against the said orders, again only to this Court. For convenience sake, Section 83 of the Act reads as under. “83. For convenience sake, Section 83 of the Act reads as under. “83. Encroachments by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroachers:- (1) Where the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, either suo motu or upon a complaint made by the trustee has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as ‘encroacher’) any land, building, tank, well, spring or 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 Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction over the division in which the institution or endowment is situated. (2) Where, on a perusal of the report received by him under sub-section (1), the Endowments Tribunal finds that there is a prima facie case of encroachment, it shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment before the date specified in the notice should not be made. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the trustee of the institution or endowment concerned. (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) Whereafter considering the objections, if any, of the encroacher received during the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) and after conducting such enquiry as may be prescribed, the Endowments Tribunal is satisfied that there has been an encroachment, it may, by order, require in the encroacher to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the land or, building or space encroached upon to the trustee before the date specified in such order. (5) The order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) shall be in writing and shall contain the grounds on which he has passed the order. (6) During the pendency of the proceedings, the Endowments Tribunal shall order the encroacher to deposit such amount as may be specified by it in consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question in the manner prescribed.” Section 84 of the Act reads as under. 84. (6) During the pendency of the proceedings, the Endowments Tribunal shall order the encroacher to deposit such amount as may be specified by it in consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question in the manner prescribed.” Section 84 of the Act reads as under. 84. Mode of eviction on failure of removal of the encroachments as directed by the Endowments Tribunal:- (1) Where within the period specified in the order under sub-section (4) of Section 83, the encroacher has not removed the encroachment and has not vacated the land, building or space, the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the sub-division may remove the encroachment and obtain possession of the land, building or space, encroached upon, taking such police assistance as may be necessary. Any Police Officer whose help is required for this purpose shall be required to render the necessary help to the Assistant Commissioner. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by any order of the Endowments Tribunal under 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:” 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 with powers of revision only against the orders, where no appeal is provided, but not otherwise. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 15.02.2007 in C.M.A.No.30 of 2004 is set aside, as being without jurisdiction. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 15.02.2007 in C.M.A.No.30 of 2004 is set aside, as being without jurisdiction. The District Judge, Srikakulam District, is directed to the return original papers of appeal to the respondent therein to resubmit the same within a period of thirty {30} days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.