ORDER : M. VENKATA RAMANA, J. 1. This Civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the order of AP. Endowments Tribunal in O.A. No. 01 of 2006, dated 30.05.2019. 2. The appellant is the second respondent, the first respondent is the petitioner and whereas the second respondent is the first respondent in O.A. No. 01 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani. 3. The first respondent is a public religious temple notified under Section 6 (c) (ii) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'Act 30 of 1987'). This temple has several properties including the disputed dry land covering an extent of Ac. 1.82½ cents in S. No. 63/1 at Gudilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It was stated in the application by the first respondent-temple, filed under Section 83 (1) of Act 30 of 1987, that the appellant had encroached upon the above land and being in illegal occupation, has been running a brick industry there, without approval from any competent authority. Thus, it was claimed that there has been a change in the use of the land adversely affecting its fertility. Claiming further that the appellant failed to pay damages, which would have brought otherwise, not less than Rs. 25,000/- per annum, the above application was presented, requiring eviction of the appellant there from. 4. Opposing the above application the appellant filed a counter stating that he filed O.S. No. 384 of 2006 against the first respondent-temple for declaration of right and title to the land in dispute, now pending on the file of the Court of leaned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein a temporary injunction was granted in his favour and against the first respondent-temple restraining the respondent-temple not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of this land during pendency of the suit. The appellant further claimed in the counter that, he had purchased this land for valuable consideration on 19.08.1999 from the father of the second respondent, viz., Sri Danthuluri Sanyasi Suryanarayana Gajapathi Raju, under a registered sale deed and since then he has been in effective possession and enjoyment of this land. The appellant further claimed in the counter that, he had purchased this land for valuable consideration on 19.08.1999 from the father of the second respondent, viz., Sri Danthuluri Sanyasi Suryanarayana Gajapathi Raju, under a registered sale deed and since then he has been in effective possession and enjoyment of this land. Subsequent to his purchase, he constructed a asbestos sheet house in the said disputed land, got dug an open well and after obtaining necessary permissions from competent authorities for industrial purpose, he gave the said land to a Brick Industry, viz., Surendra Bricks, Gudilova on lease. It is further stated that he received a notice dated 20.08.2005 from the first respondent-temple demanding to vacate entire extent of Ac. 3.65 cents in Sy. No. 63/1 within a week and that he had sent a suitable reply dated 31.08.2005 to it. He also states that on 08.01.2006 and 09.01.2006 during pendency of O.A., officers of the first respondent-temple came up on the above land and caused damage to certain extent though protested by the labourers working in the brick industry, who left the place after verifying the title deeds, pattadar pass books and other documents shown by the appellant, openly threatening to remove all the constructions. Thus, he asserted his right, title and interest to this land while denying the claim of the first respondent-temple. 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for determination:- 1. Whether the respondents are encroachers U/section 83 of Act 30/1987, if so, liable to be evicted? 2. To what relief? 6. Before the Endowments Tribunal, the Manager of the first respondent-temple examined himself as P.W. 1 and Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.7 were marked. The appellant examined himself as R.W. 1 while relying on Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.20 in support of his contention. 7. On the material, the Tribunal observed while considering Issue No. 1, that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of genuine nature in respect of the entries in register maintained U/section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987 and considering the effect of Section 81 as well as Section 83(1) of said Act, ultimately held that the occupation of the appellant of the land in dispute stood as an encroacher. Thus, recording the findings on issue No. 1, it was held while considering issue No. 2, that the appellant shall vacate and handover vacant possession of this land within one month to the first respondent-temple as well as pay damages of Rs. 10,000/- per annum, from the date of possession till the date of delivery. It was further directed that in the event of failure to deliver this land in dispute to the first respondent-temple, the appellant shall also pay penalty of Rs. 5,000/- per month for use and occupation till taking over possession of this land by the first respondent-temple. 8. Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Mahendar Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent-temple submitted their arguments at the admission stage itself. Therefore, this appeal is being disposed of now. 9. Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the order passed by the Endowments Tribunal is void and non est for the reason that it is not a properly constituted forum and that order passed by a Member of the Tribunal is not in accordance with Law. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there is sufficient material adduced in the course of enquiry before the Tribunal proving right, title and interest of the appellant to the land in dispute, which also stood recorded in his name in the relevant revenue records including pattadar pass books. Basing on such material, it is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the effect of presumption under Section 6 of A.P Rights in Land in Pattadar Passbooks Act, whereby a presumption is attached of possession of such land with right and title, since every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true. Thus, with reference to revenue records while referring to entries in Ex. B-2 to Ex. B-5 and Ex. B-17, it is contended for the appellant that the Tribunal is not right in holding him as an encroacher of the land in dispute. Thus, contending it is sought to allow this appeal. 10. Thus, with reference to revenue records while referring to entries in Ex. B-2 to Ex. B-5 and Ex. B-17, it is contended for the appellant that the Tribunal is not right in holding him as an encroacher of the land in dispute. Thus, contending it is sought to allow this appeal. 10. Sri K. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent-temple supported the order under appeal mainly on the ground that entries made in the concerned registers under Section 38 of Act 17 of 1966 as well as Section 40 of Act 30 of 1987 have a presumption in their favour as to their correctness and unless such entries are effectively rebutted by acceptable evidence, they shall be accepted. It is further contended referring to contents of Ex. A4 and Ex. A5 that in terms of Section 43 of the above Act, the claim of the appellant, as such, cannot be accepted and entries in revenue records do not lead to hold title to this land in favour of the appellant. It is further contended that having regard to nature of occupation of this land by the appellant, where a brick-industry is being run affecting its nature as well as quality, the Tribunal is right in arriving at such conclusions. Thus supporting the order under appeal, it is sought to dismiss this appeal. 11. In the backdrop of the material and the contentions advanced on behalf of both the parties, now the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal through its Member without full quorum including the Chairman is proper and if it is non est in the eye of law? 2. Whether the land in dispute belonged to the first respondent-temple and if eviction of the appellant there from ordered by the Tribunal, is proper? 3. To what relief? 12. POINT No. 1: The question relating to proper constitution of Endowments Tribunal has to be considered in this appeal in the backdrop and having regard to the fact that the appellant had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal and invited determination of the matter. 13. The Endowments Tribunal is constituted under Section 167 of Act 30 of 1987. In terms of Section 167(3) of this Act there shall be a Chairman and a Member, constituting the Tribunal. 14. There are also rules issued in G.O. Ms. 13. The Endowments Tribunal is constituted under Section 167 of Act 30 of 1987. In terms of Section 167(3) of this Act there shall be a Chairman and a Member, constituting the Tribunal. 14. There are also rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 180 Revenue (Endowment)-I dated 08.10.2010 relating to the matters arising out of affairs of and the properties belonging to or fall within the scope of Act 30 of 1987. Rule 5(2) of these rules is as follows: "5.--------- (2) The Chairman, in the absence of the Member or the Member in the absence of the Chairman, may record evidence and also dispose of the Interlocutory Applications." 15. Rule 22 of these rules provides for pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal. Rule 22(2) in this context is relevant and it reads as under: "(2) Both the Chairman and Member should hear the arguments in the application and deliver the order signed by both of them or independently. In case of disagreement the Chairman shall address the Government." 16. It is the contention on behalf of the appellant that having regard to the above rules, when a Tribunal shall be constituted by the Chairman and a Member, Member alone cannot decide the matters nor is competent to pass orders. It is further contended that an order of this Tribunal shall be signed by both Chairman and the Member, who should hear an application and deliver an order thereupon. 17. Rule 22(2) itself provides for consideration and determination of the matters by Chairman as well as the Member together or by any one of them independently. Therefore, in such situation, when the matter concerned to this case was heard and was finally disposed of by a Member of the Tribunal, it is not now open for the appellant to raise such question, as rightly contended for the first respondent. Added to it, the effect of Section 162(7) of Act 30 of 1987 in this context shall be considered. It reads as under: "(7) No act or proceedings of any Tribunal shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy among its members or any defect, in the constitution or reconstitution thereof." 18. No act or proceeding shall be deemed invalid, when there is a vacancy among the members and any defect in its constitution, shall not affect the proceedings of the Tribunal. 19. No act or proceeding shall be deemed invalid, when there is a vacancy among the members and any defect in its constitution, shall not affect the proceedings of the Tribunal. 19. In the above circumstances, reliance placed by the appellant in Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Parkash Wanti (Smt) (Dead) and another (1995) 5 SCC 159 with reference to constitution of Endowments Tribunals, is not apt. It was a case, where the Tribunal constituted for the purpose of land acquisition in terms of Punjab Improvement Trust Act was considered and basing on situation obtained then, the observations were so made that the award was not of the Tribunal, but of the President, making the same as well as the decree there under being void in para-23 of this ruling. Therefore, when the effect of the Rules and particularly Section 162(7) of Act 30 of 1987 are considered, the question so raised on behalf of the appellant cannot stand. 20. Therefore, in view of Section 162(7) of Act 30 of 1987, when it is considered along with Rule 22(5) of the rules framed under this Act, relating to functioning of the Endowments Tribunal, the first objection raised on behalf of the appellant, questioning the order under appeal, should be rejected. As rightly contended for the first respondent when the appellant had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the above Tribunal and invited an order, it is not open for him to raise such question in this appeal. 21. Therefore, rejecting such contention on behalf of the appellant, this point is answered in favour of the first respondent and against the appellant. 22. POINT No. 2: It is the contention on behalf of the first respondent-temple that the land in question totally measuring an extent of Ac. 3.65 cents in Sy. No. 63-1 of Gudilova village, belonged to it and it was also entered in the concerned registers maintained in terms of Section 38 of Act 17 of 1966 and Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987. P.W. 1-the Manager of the first respondent-temple deposed in respect thereof, while relying on Ex. A1 to Ex. A7. Ex. A4 is an extract of the register maintained under Section 38 of Act 17 of 1966. It clearly bears an entry relating to the land in dispute. The alleged vendor of this land under Ex. B1 sale deed was the trustee of this temple. A1 to Ex. A7. Ex. A4 is an extract of the register maintained under Section 38 of Act 17 of 1966. It clearly bears an entry relating to the land in dispute. The alleged vendor of this land under Ex. B1 sale deed was the trustee of this temple. Similarly, the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act has such entries according to contention on behalf of the first respondent. They are also adverted to in the order under appeal. Sri Dantuluri Sanyasi Suryanarayana Gajapathi Raju, who figured as the executant of Ex. B1 sale deed conveying Ac. 1.82½ cents in Sy. No. 63/1 of Gudilova village was suspended from hereditary trusteeship of the first respondent-temple in the year 2005 by the competent authority on the allegation that he sold away the land belonging to this temple. 23. As rightly observed in the order under appeal, in respect of such entries of the register maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, in terms of Section 46(3), all particulars entered therein shall be presumed genuine, and a certified copy of an entry in the register so maintained shall be admissible in evidence in any Court. It shall have the same effect to all intends as the original entry of which, it is a copy. 24. However, it is the contention on behalf of the appellant that the extract of this register under Ex. A4 is not making out that the entries in the original register were so maintained containing particulars as specified in Section 43(4) of Act 30 of 1987. Particular reference is made in this context that the details of institution and of the grant among other things shall be entered in this register along with particulars of all title deeds and other documents relating to the properties belonging to the temple, in terms of Section 43(4)(c) & (e) of this Act. Commenting on the contents of Ex. A4, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that when it did not reflect such details, it cannot be the basis for the first respondent-temple to make a claim against the appellant and no presumption, as to its entries, being correct can be drawn. 25. Commenting on the contents of Ex. A4, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that when it did not reflect such details, it cannot be the basis for the first respondent-temple to make a claim against the appellant and no presumption, as to its entries, being correct can be drawn. 25. The specific contention of the appellant is that the land in dispute was purchased by him from one Sri Dantuluri Sanyasi Suryanarayana Gajapathi Raju, who is none other than the father of the second respondent, for valuable consideration on 19.08.1999 and that his vendor as well as his ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of this land having right, title and interest for the last 200 years. 26. Contents of Ex. B1 also reflect that the vendor there under claimed that this land is a part of their ancestral estate. However, there is no material placed by the appellant to that effect. Mere production of revenue records in the nature of pattadar pass book or ownership passbook (book of title deed), certain revenue cist receipts being Ex. B2 to Ex. B20 cannot by themselves make out his claim in this respect. Strenuous contentions are advanced referring to entries in Ex. B17, which is an extract of 10(1) account stating that it shall be deemed a final authority proving that this land stood vested with right, title and interest in the vendors of the appellant under Ex. B1. Contents of Ex. B17 can have no better status than that of a revenue record. 10(1) account reflects only a patta. It did not bear any indication as to when such an entry was recorded and during which fasli. 27. Mere entries in revenue records cannot confer right, title and interest to any person in respect of a land. Therefore, even if Ex. B2 to Ex. B20 are taken into consideration, they do not lead to infer that the vendor of the appellant under Ex. B1 held such property as a matter of right with title and interest. In that backdrop, the appellant cannot rely on effect of Section 6 of A.P. Rights and Pattadar Passbooks Act though under Section 6 of this Act, every entry in record of rights shall be presumed true until contrary is proved. B1 held such property as a matter of right with title and interest. In that backdrop, the appellant cannot rely on effect of Section 6 of A.P. Rights and Pattadar Passbooks Act though under Section 6 of this Act, every entry in record of rights shall be presumed true until contrary is proved. A presumption thereunder cannot be elongated to the extent of recognizing the title as well as right to the property in question in terms thereof. Even record of rights only proves factum of possession of the property and cannot recognize or acknowledge the title or confer title upon the person in occupation of the land. In such an event; contentions advanced with reference to such documents on behalf of appellant cannot lead to infer that the appellant had the title to the land in dispute. 28. It is manifest from the record that the father of the second respondent Sri Dantuluri Sanyasi Surya Narayana Gajapathi Raju, was then hereditary trustee of this temple and apparently he had made use of his position in this temple in relation to this temple and has been claiming as this land being a part of his ancestral estate, he had brought out Ex. B1 sale deed as if he and the first respondent had sold this land to the appellant. 29. When the father of the second respondent Sri Dantuluri Sanyasi Surya Narayana Gajapathi Raju, was hereditary trustee of the first respondent-temple, as observed in the order under appeal, execution of such sale deed cannot and did not confer title to the appellant. Possession of the land in dispute by the appellant in these circumstances cannot be deemed rightful as against the first respondent-temple. 30. Therefore, in the above-backdrop when the contents of Ex. A4 and Ex. A5 are considered, they clearly point out that this land belonged to the first respondent-temple and hence, nature of possession of this land by the appellant -shall be deemed unauthorized. Contents of these registers sought to be challenged now in this appeal, cannot stand in as much as such entries were made long prior to initiation of eviction proceedings before the Endowments Tribunal, on behalf of the first respondent-temple. When they are statutory registers, regularity in their maintenance shall be presumed in the material placed by the appellant did not effectively rebut the entries made in such registers. When they are statutory registers, regularity in their maintenance shall be presumed in the material placed by the appellant did not effectively rebut the entries made in such registers. It is also clear that the entries in the above statutory registers were made when the father of the second respondent Sri Dantuluri Sanyasi Surya Narayana Gajapathi Raju was the hereditary trustee if at all his predecessors in title or if the land in dispute had been a part of their ancestral estate, he should have raised a dispute questioning such entries. Obviously, he remained quiet and allowed such entries to continue in those registers. When entries relating to Ex. A5 were entered and the concerned register was prepared on 08.12.2006, he had an opportunity to question them. It was so even in case of entries in Ex. A4, which was said to have been prepared in the year 1986. Such material was elicited in cross-examination of P.W. 1 on behalf of the appellant.' This circumstance definitely militates against the contentions of the appellant that these registers were not maintained as required in terms of Section 43(4) of Act 30 of 1987. When it is manifest that the then trustee of this temple had manipulated such entries including Ex. B1 against the, interest of temple, when the possession of this land is claimed by the appellant by virtue of the sale deed so obtained, it cannot be deemed a regular and authorized occupation. 31. The land apparently is put to commercial use, as seen from the material on record, since a brick industry is being run in it. Therefore, on a careful consideration of entire material, the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant have to be rejected while confirming the order under appeal and accepting the contentions on behalf of the first respondent-temple. 32. Though there is reference to pendency of a suit instituted by the appellant against the first respondent-temple in respect of this land to declare his right, title and interest, no arguments are addressed on behalf of both parties with reference thereto. 33. The Tribunal rightly took into consideration the effect of Section 81 and Section 83(1) of Act 30 of 1987 in this regard and there is complete justification in directing eviction of the appellant from the land in dispute, which proved to be belonging to the first respondent-temple. 34. 33. The Tribunal rightly took into consideration the effect of Section 81 and Section 83(1) of Act 30 of 1987 in this regard and there is complete justification in directing eviction of the appellant from the land in dispute, which proved to be belonging to the first respondent-temple. 34. Since occupation of this land on behalf of the appellant is proved to be unauthorized and illegal, a direction given to pay damages at Rs. 10,000/- per annum from the date of possession till the date of delivery is completely justified. Since this land is being exploited commercially the Tribunal should have arrived at a higher fate than as quantified in the order under appeal. Further direction to pay damages for use and occupation describing it as penalty at Rs. 5,000/- per month, though appearing to be on low side, when-it was so awarded in the discretion of the Tribunal, it need not be disturbed. 35. Therefore, rejecting all contentions on behalf of the appellant, this C.M.A. has to be dismissed confirming the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the order under appeal. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the first respondent and against the appellant. 36. POINT No. 3: In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, this CM.A:. should necessarily fail. The appellant shall bear costs to the first respondent in this appeal and shall bear his own costs. 37. In the result, this C.M.A. is dismissed with costs of the respondent while directing, the appellant to bear his own costs. Consequently, the order of A.P. Endowments Tribunal in O.A. No. 1 of 2006 dated 30.05.2019, is confirmed.