Judgment This C.M.A. is filed assailing the order dated 10.11.2011 in O.A. No.2976 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Hydereabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondents herein are the applicants in the O.A. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the O.A. However, applicant No.2, which is “Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam” will be referred to as “the Temple”. 3. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that the respondents are encroachers of cultivable land of an extent of Ac.11.32 cents in Survey No.210 situated at Niddam village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the schedule land’) belongs to the Temple and despite demands to vacate the same, they are continuously in illegal occupation of the schedule land by squatting over it and raising unauthorised structure. Further, the respondents have not been even paying any amounts to the Temple. Therefore, the applicants filed O.A. No.2976 of 2010 before the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1987 (Act No.30 of 1987) (for short ‘the Act’) seeking a direction to the respondents to vacate and hand over the schedule land. 4. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the claim of the applicants and stated that the grand-father of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by name late Tankala Lakshmi Naidu was originally inducted as cultivating tenant under permanent lease in 1942 by the Temple by giving permissible possession of the schedule land by fixing certain payment of cess to the Temple. Subsequently, the sons of Lakshmi Naidu by name Krishnamurthy Naidu and Rangu Naidu and respondent No.5 -Jaggu Naidu, who is cousin of Lakshmi Naidu, were also cultivating the schedule land with the knowledge and consent of the Temple. Respondent Nos.1 and 1 are the sons of late Krishna Murthy Naidu and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the sons of Rangu Naidu. After the demise of Lakshmi Naidu -original lease holder, his sons Krishnamurthy Naidu and Rangu Naidu were cultivating the schedule land and thereafter the respondents, being grandsons and cousin brother respectively of Lakshmi Naidu, are cultivating the schedule land. After the demise of Lakshmi Naidu -original lease holder, his sons Krishnamurthy Naidu and Rangu Naidu were cultivating the schedule land and thereafter the respondents, being grandsons and cousin brother respectively of Lakshmi Naidu, are cultivating the schedule land. When the applicants tried to evict the respondents forcibly by applying Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure, without following the due process of law, the respondents filed suit in O.S.No.150 of 1965 on the file of District Munsiff, Rajam for permanent injunction and the same was decreed observing that the respondents herein are in possession of the schedule land. Aggrieved thereby, the Temple filed A.S. No.173 of 1966 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Srikakulam and the same was dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Against the judgment in the A.S., the Temple preferred S.A. No.814 of 1968 before this Court and the same was also dismissed by judgment dated 24.04.1970 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Thereafter, the applicants kept quiet and no action has been initiated against the respondents, and as such, the ancestors of the respondents and then the respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The respondents are landless poor persons and they have no landed property except the schedule land. While things stood thus, in the year, 2010, when the Temple tried to auction the leasehold rights of the schedule land by dispossessing the respondents without following the procedure as contemplated under the law, the respondents filed W.P. No.12707 of 2010 before this Court and the same was disposed of by order dated 08.06.2010 directing the applicants not to dispossess the respondents from the schedule land, except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act. The applicants by suppressing the above material facts filed the present O.A. The applicants did not choose to issue any demand notice either to pay the cess/rent or to evict the respondents from the schedule land after the judgment of this Court in S.A. No.814 of 1968 and as such, the respondents perfected their title over the schedule land by adverse possession and they are paying land revenue to the Government. 5. On behalf of the applicants, Assistant Executive Officer of the Temple was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. 5. On behalf of the applicants, Assistant Executive Officer of the Temple was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.3 was examined as RW.1 besides examining one Lingala Papayya as RW.2 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. 6. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence on the record and the submissions made on either side, allowed the O.A. terming the respondents as encroachers as defined under Section 83 of the Act and directed the respondents to vacate and hand over the schedule land within one month by written intimation to the applicants, or else evict the respondents or any person claiming through them by applicant No.1 -Assistant Commissioner, with police aid and deliver possession of the same to the Temple. Challenging the same, the respondents preferred this C.M.A. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. 8. It is the case of the respondents (appellants herein) that their grand-father by name late Tankala Lakshmi Naidu was originally inducted as cultivating tenant in the schedule land under permanent lease in 1942 and he converted the schedule land into cultivable wet land by spending Rs.5,000/- under the bona fide belief that he had permanent lease of the schedule land. After the demise of the original tenant, when the Temple was trying to evict the father of respondents 1 and 2, father of respondents 3 and 4 and respondent No.5, they filed suit in O.S. No.150 of 1965 for permanent injunction and the same was decreed, and the Temple carried the matter to the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.173 of 1966 and then to this Court in S.A. No.814 of 1968, however, the decree and judgment of the trial Court was confirmed all through and it has become final. The forefathers of the respondents were cultivating the schedule land since 1942 and thereafter, the respondents, being successors, are cultivating the schedule land with the knowledge and consent of the Temple. Since the applicants did not choose to issue any demand notice either to pay the cess/rent or to evict the respondents from the schedule land after the judgment of this Court in S.A. No.814 of 1968, the respondents perfected their title over the schedule land by adverse possession and they are paying land revenue to the Government and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are the encroachers. It is the case of the respondents that they are landless poor persons as they have no other landed property except the schedule land. It is contended that the O.A. filed before the Endowments Tribunal is not maintainable since the competent civil Court observed that it is open to the applicants to file a petition before the tenancy Court to evict the respondents. Further, when the Temple tried to auction the leasehold rights of the schedule land in the year 2010, the respondents filed writ petition No.12707 of 2010 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 08.06.2010 with a direction to the Temple not to dispossess the respondents from the schedule land, except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act. 9. The respondents relied on the decision of this Court in Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 2011 (6) ALT 162 ) to substantiate their claim that they are landless poor and they also relied on the decision in Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple v. Garuda Venkata Rao (died) per Lrs ( 2007 (1) ALT 86 ) to support their claim that they are permanent lessees over the schedule land. 10. It is the case of the Temple that the predecessors of the respondents and the respondents claimed that they are tenants in respect of the schedule land since 1942 and that their predecessors and thereafter they themselves have been cultivating the schedule land by paying the lease amount regularly. Thereafter, in 1965, when some third parties tried to encroach upon the schedule land, the respondents filed O.S. No.150 of 1965 before the Court of District Munsiff, Rajam, Srikakulam, against the third parties including the Temple as defendant No.7, seeking permanent injunction and the same was decreed after due trial vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1966 observing that the injunction orders would hold good till the respondents are evicted from the schedule lands by due process of law and that defendant No.7 -Temple was given liberty to initiate proceedings for eviction of the respondents from the schedule land. Assailing the said decree and judgment dated 15.01.1966 in O.S.No.150 of 1965, defendant No.7-Temple preferred appeal in A.S.No.173 of 1966 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Srikakulam and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.04.1968 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Assailing the said decree and judgment dated 15.01.1966 in O.S.No.150 of 1965, defendant No.7-Temple preferred appeal in A.S.No.173 of 1966 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Srikakulam and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.04.1968 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.7 – Temple also preferred Second Appeal in S.A. No.814 of 1968 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 24.04.1970. 11. Subsequently, on 21.04.2010 the Temple authorities issued notification to lease out the schedule land by public auction as per Rules 7 and 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules’). 12. The respondents challenged the said notification before this Court by filing writ petition No.12707 of 2010, which was disposed of on 08.06.2010 observing that the respondents are said to be in occupation of the schedule land ever since 1942 albeit without a lease being granted in their favour for the past several years; that they fall within the definition of ‘encroachers’ under Section 83 of the Act, and that the applicants were directed not to dispossess the respondents from the land in question except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act. In view of the same, the Temple authorities had initiated proceedings before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2976 of 2010 seeking eviction of the respondents which was allowed vide judgment dated 10.11.2011 after full-fledged trial, holding that the respondents are encroachers and directed them to vacate the schedule land. It is the case of the Temple that the eviction orders passed by the Tribunal were executed on 18.06.2012 by duly evicting the respondents from the schedule land and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department has taken possession of the schedule land. Execution Report is attested by 10 witnesses and the same bears the extent of the schedule land, its location and its boundaries. Since the respondents are evicted from the schedule land by executing the eviction orders passed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 84 of the Act, the Temple authorities issued proceedings dated 20.06.2012, which was published in a daily newspaper dated 23.06.2012, to conduct public auction of the schedule land and the same was scheduled to be held on 30.06.2012. Since the respondents are evicted from the schedule land by executing the eviction orders passed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 84 of the Act, the Temple authorities issued proceedings dated 20.06.2012, which was published in a daily newspaper dated 23.06.2012, to conduct public auction of the schedule land and the same was scheduled to be held on 30.06.2012. Meanwhile, the respondents aggrieved by the judgment in O.A. No.2976 of 2010 dated 10.11.2011 have filed the present C.M.A. In the C.M.A., after hearing both sides, this Court vide orders dated 25.06.2012 granted status-quoexisting as on that day till next date of hearing. The respondents also filed writ petition No.19422 of 2012 before this Court seeking public auction notice dated 20.06.2012 to be set-aside and the same was disposed of directing the Temple to defer the public auction subject to furthers orders that may be passed in the C.M.A. No.503 of 2012. Further, the respondents claimed to be landless poor, may be with the intention of taking advantage of the provisions under Section 82 of the Act. However, it is to be noted that eviction order of the Tribunal was already executed on 18.06.2012 prior to the status quo that was passed by this Court on 25.06.2012. 13. It is contended on behalf of the Temple that since the respondents claimed that they are permanent lessees, the provisions under sub section 2 of Section 84 of the Act are not applicable as they are not raising title dispute. Further, it is contended that from the date of the Act coming into force, all the existing leases are cancelled by the provisions under Section 82 of the Act. Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules contemplate the procedure for leasing out agricultural lands by holding public auction. Non compliance of the said Rules will render the lease null and void and the leaseholders have become encroachers as contemplated under the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. 14. It is also the case of the Temple that the C.M.A. is misconceived and is not maintainable under Section 84(2) of the Act, which lays down the procedure of executing the eviction orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act. 15. 14. It is also the case of the Temple that the C.M.A. is misconceived and is not maintainable under Section 84(2) of the Act, which lays down the procedure of executing the eviction orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act. 15. So far as the declaration of any cultivating tenant as landless poor is concerned, it is provided under Rule 3 of the Rules that on application being made to that effect, the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction, after enquiring into the matter may declare him to be a landless poor as defined under Section 82 of the Act. However, it is contended that the respondents did not make any such application before the concerned authority and since the respondents did not comply with the said provisions of the Rule 3 of the Rules, they cannot be said to be landless poor. To that effect, the Temple relied on the decision in V.V. Krishna Reddy v. Ramalingeswara Swamy Devasthanam ( 2007 (1) ALD 262 ). Further, as per the provisions of Section 143 of the Act, confirming title by adverse possession does not arise at all. 16. The respondents claimed that their grand-father, being original permanent lessee, converted the schedule land into wet land by spending Rs.5,000/-. However, in the counter filed in the O.A., the respondents themselves stated that the schedule land is wet land and the same was leased out to their grand-father. It is seen that in O.S.No.150 of 1965, the trial Court while granting permanent injunction in favour of the respondents, observed that the respondents are to be evicted from the schedule land by due process of law. This Court also in W.P.No.12707 of 2010, while directing the applicants not to dispossess the respondents, observed that the respondents are to be evicted in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 83 of the Act. Further, this Court in W.P. No. 12707 of 2010 observed that the respondents are said to be in occupation of the schedule premises since 1942 albeit without a lease being granted in their favour for the past several years and they fall within the definition of encroacher under Section 83 of the Act. 17. Further, this Court in W.P. No. 12707 of 2010 observed that the respondents are said to be in occupation of the schedule premises since 1942 albeit without a lease being granted in their favour for the past several years and they fall within the definition of encroacher under Section 83 of the Act. 17. Pursuant to the observation of this Court in W.P.No.12707 of 2010, the applicants filed O.A.No.2976 of 2010 before the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act for eviction of the respondents from the schedule land. The Tribunal considering the material available on record and the submissions made on either side, allowed the O.A., directing the respondents to vacate the schedule land. 18. So far as the contention of the respondents that the O.A. filed before the Endowments Tribunal is not maintainable since the competent civil Court observed that it is open to the applicants to file a petition before the tenancy Court to evict the respondents, is concerned, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in Jaladi Seetharamamma v. Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple ( 2004 (6) ALD 739 ) wherein it was held that the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act,1956 are non-est in law and parties have to work out their remedies under the Endowments Act. 19. It appears though the grand-father of the respondents was inducted as permanent lessee of the schedule land on payment of rent, there is no proof to show that the respondents continuously paying the rents to the Temple after demise of their grandfather. In order to overcome default in payment of rents, the respondents are claiming adverse possession over the schedule land. The respondents on one hand claimed that they are permanent lessees of the Temple and on the other they claimed that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. It is settled law that a tenant cannot claim adverse possession of the tenanted land though he is in possession of the same for a long period. The respondents claimed that they are landless poor persons taking advantage of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, but they did not produce any proof to that aspect. 20. It is settled law that a tenant cannot claim adverse possession of the tenanted land though he is in possession of the same for a long period. The respondents claimed that they are landless poor persons taking advantage of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, but they did not produce any proof to that aspect. 20. Further, it is seen that as per the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2976 of 2010, The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department executed the eviction orders and has taken possession of the schedule land by evicting the respondents on 18.06.2012 and Execution Report is attested by 10 witnesses and the same bears the extent of the schedule land, its location and its boundaries. 21. So far as the decisions relied on by the respondents in Satyadeva Sannakaru Rythu Sangham v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1 supra) and Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple v. Garuda Venkata (2 supra)are concerned, they are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case on hand. 22. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error or irregularity warranting interference from this Court, and as such, the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.