JUDGMENT T. Vinod Kumar, J. - The present writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondent authority in registering a case based on the complaint made by the petitioner dated 23.06.2020 against the people named therein, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The present writ petition is taken up for hearing today, i.e. 14.07.2020, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 4. It is claimed by the petitioner that, the petitioner was cultivating the land belongs to the temple admeasuring Ac.32.00 gts during the year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, and even for the current year i.e., 2020-21, the petitioner has sowed cotton seed therein which has been disturbed / dug up by the people named in the complaint by using tractors, upon which the petitioner approached the 4th respondent authority and made a complaint on 23.06.2020. As the respondent authority has not registered a case on the complaint made by the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this court by the present writ petition. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader (Home) has forwarded to this court by e-mail written instructions dated 13.07.2020, enclosing therewith letter No. SRMD/2020, dated 12.07.2020 under the signature of Executive Officer, Sri Ram Mandir, Narayankhed. 6. By the written instructions of the 4th respondent, it is stated that on receipt of the complaint dated 23.06.2020 from the petitioners on 25.06.2020 by speed post, the 4th respondent authority made G.D. entry, and called petitioner over phone to meet the SHO, to narrate and clarify the claim made in the petition, but the petitioners denied to approach the SHO directly and did not respond properly by giving details as to claim being made by the petitioners. As the petitioners failed to give details, the 4th respondent authority personally visited the temple and tried to get the details as to the claim being made by the petitioners with regard to the lease of the temple land for cultivation, whereupon it revealed that the petitioners are having no legal right to claim as lease holders. It is further stated that upon learning of the same, the said authority addressed a letter to the executive officer vide refernce no. Lr. It is further stated that upon learning of the same, the said authority addressed a letter to the executive officer vide refernce no. Lr. No. 47/J1/2020 for obtaining clarification regarding temple land, to which the said authority has furnished point wise information / response by his letter dated 12.07.2020. By the said written instructions it is further stated that on 20.06.2020, when M. Rama Krishna, A. Parsuram and others were taking part in Harithaharam programme near Bathukamma Kunta, the petitioners along with two others went there and objected to the plantation being done and to stop the same and picked up quarrel and abused the said persons in filthy language, upon which M. Ramakrishna lodged a complaint with the 4th respondent authority. It is also stated that as the complaint lodged disclosed commission of an offence of non-cognizable nature, the 4th respondent authority after making a GD entry, made a requisition to the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Narayankhed, seeking permission to register a case and take up investigation, and the said permission is awaited. It is also stated that the petitioners on learning of the complaint lodged against them, have hatched the plan and sent the false complaint against the people / person named therein to bring pressure to come to compromise with them. 7. Having given due consideration to the submissions made, and from the facts as averred in the writ petition, admittedly, the land of Ac.32.00 gts belongs to Sri Ram Mandir temple of Narayankhed, which is an endowment temple. As per the provisions of Section 82(3) of The Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'Act'), the power to sanction the lease / licence of the endowed property shall vest with the authority as prescribed. Further, the power to grant such lease of agriculture lands endowed, vests with the Assistant Commissioner as appointed under Section 11 of the Act or executive officer, and the said authority can direct a trustee to perform the functions as contemplated under Section 24 of the Act. 8. Though, the petitioner claims to have been given lease rights in respect of the endowed property of Ac. 32-00 Gts of land for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20, no proceeding has been shown to this Court, as issued by the competent authority, for accepting the said claim. 8. Though, the petitioner claims to have been given lease rights in respect of the endowed property of Ac. 32-00 Gts of land for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20, no proceeding has been shown to this Court, as issued by the competent authority, for accepting the said claim. Further, for the reasons best known, the petitioner did not choose to make the concerned endowment authorities as respondent in the present writ petition, who could have confirmed the claim of the petitioner of being given lease of the endowed property for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20, and how the petitioner was allowed to cultivate the lands year after year without making payment of lease amount. It is also not comprehensible as to why the petitioner suddenly decided to make payment of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of previous years lease amounts by approaching the trustee, which the said trustee refused to accept as being claimed, whereupon the petitioner claims to have approached the local Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). It is being claimed by the petitioner that upon approaching the MLA, the said representative took the money from the petitioners in respect of the previous years, informing the petitioners that the said amount would be passed on to the concerned and would get a receipt issued from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and also assured the petitioners that the lease would be granted to the petitioners for the year 2020-21 also and the petitioner can proceed with the cultivation, based on which assurance, the petitioners claim to have taken up sowing of cotton corp. As noted above, if only the concerned endowment authorities are made parties to the present proceeding, the truth of the claim of the petitioner could have come out, but the fact situation is otherwise and the alleged acts complained of by the petitioners are uncorroborated by any material to the said effect. 9. As noted above, if only the concerned endowment authorities are made parties to the present proceeding, the truth of the claim of the petitioner could have come out, but the fact situation is otherwise and the alleged acts complained of by the petitioners are uncorroborated by any material to the said effect. 9. In so far as the claim of the petitioners that on the assurance of the local MLA, the petitioners have ploughed the land of the temple endowed land for the year 2020-21 and sowed the cotton seed, it is to be seen that till appropriate proceedings are issued by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot claim any interest in respect of the endowed property and if petitioner has entered and undertook any such activity of ploughing and sowing, such act of the petitioner clearly is in the nature of trespass and cannot seek any equities in relation to such acts. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the people named in the complaint at the behest of the MLA had entered into the land being cultivated by the petitioners and having disturbed the crop sown, by using tractors on different dates, for which the petitioner claims to have approached the 4th respondent authority and making a complaint dated 23.06.2020 which is being claimed as not being registered and enquired into by the 4th respondent authority, cannot be accepted as genuine. 10. Further, a reading of the letter dated 12.07.2020 issued by the Executive officer of the temple as enclosed with the written instructions of the 4th respondent authority, show that the land admeasuring Ac. 32.39 Gts in Sy.No. 87 & 106 has not been leased out to any person as on date and since no amounts are received /collected as lease rent no record is available with the temple for the amount collected from the so called tenants. By the said letter the Executive officer has also confirmed that for the past 3 years the Endowment department, Hyderabad has not constituted any trust board in respect of the subject temple committee. 11. A combined reading of the above stated facts go to show that the alleged claim of the petitioners with regard to the endowed land of the temple being cultivated by them during the year 2018- 19 and 2019-20 is not borne out from the record much less for the year ahead viz., 2020-21. 11. A combined reading of the above stated facts go to show that the alleged claim of the petitioners with regard to the endowed land of the temple being cultivated by them during the year 2018- 19 and 2019-20 is not borne out from the record much less for the year ahead viz., 2020-21. If the petitioners had entered into the said temple land and ploughed the same, such act of petitioner as observed above is clearly constitutes trespass, and thus the claim of the petitioner that even though petitioner has trespassed in to the temple land, but the 4th respondent police is required to register the case on the basis of facts stated in the complaint made and to conduct investigation thereinto, is clearly a misnomer much less for invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, and the writ petition as filed is clearly misconceived, devoid of merit and is an abuse of process of law. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.