ORDER : 1. The present writ petitioners are in occupation of lands allegedly belonging to Sri Nirma Maheswara Swamy Temple colloquially called as Nimma Maheswara Swamy Temple, Podili Village, Prakasam District. The writ petitions have been referred to the Division Bench to decide the question as to the scope of Section 84 (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) which deals with the encroachers’ right to file an appeal against the order passed by the Endowments Tribunal under Section 83 (4) of the Act. 2. Admittedly, all the writ petitioners are in occupation of the lands from where they have been sought to be removed from possession on the ground that they have encroached the property belonging to the Sri Nirma Maheswara Swamy Temple colloquially called as Nimma Maheswara Swamy Temple. Orders have been passed by the Endowments Tribunal under Section 83 (4) of the Act. Challenging the same, some of the petitioners initially preferred writ petitions before this Court in the year 2008 and 2009 while some others against whom orders have been passed in the year 2019 preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in the year 2020, wherein, in course of hearing, learned Government Pleader objected to the maintainability of the appeal on the plea that the person who is claiming to be an occupier/encroacher of the property cannot maintain the appeal as per Section 84 (2) of the Act. After hearing the parties, learned single Judge in C.M.A. (SR) No. 26086 of 2020 observed that as per Section 84 of the Act, a person who disputes the title of the temple and asserts that he is the owner of the property can only prefer the C.M.A. before this Court. The other persons are not provided any remedy under the Act, then in those cases they have to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, an encroacher cannot come before this Court by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. After recording the said observation, learned single Judge permitted the appellants to withdraw the appeals with liberty to prefer writ petitions. 3. After recording the said observation, learned single Judge permitted the appellants to withdraw the appeals with liberty to prefer writ petitions. 3. When the petitioners preferred the writ petitions and the same were posted for hearing before another learned single Judge of this Court, this Court doubted the correctness of the order dated 13.11.2020 passed in C.M.A. (SR) No. 26086 of 2020, and directed for posting of the matter before the Division Bench for rendering interpretation as to the scope of Section 84 (2) of the Act. 4. In order to dwell upon the issue, we are required to refer to the relevant provisions as contained in Section 83 and 84 of the Act, which are reproduced hereunder: “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 (hereafter 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. Explanation: For the purpose of this Chapter the expression ‘encroacher’ shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it. (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) Where after 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, 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 subsection (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. 84. Mode of eviction on failure of removal of the encroachment 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 order of the Endowments Tribunal under subsection (4) of section 83 from instituting 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: Provided that no appeal shall be preferred after expiry of ninety days from the date of receipt of the order under subsection (4) of section 83: Provided further that no such appeal shall be preferred by a person who is let into the possession of the land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licencee or mortgagee, of the institution or endowment.” 5. Sections 83 to 86 of the Act form part of Chapter XI dealing with encroachments. Section 83 of the Act enjoins the Assistant Commissioner to submit a report before the Endowments Tribunal in respect of encroachments made over the endowments land. The Tribunal thereafter, if it finds prima-facie case of encroachment, is required to issue notice to the encroacher specifying the particulars of encroachment and calling upon him to show cause requiring him to remove the encroachment. 6. Under sub-section (4) of Section 83 of the Act, the Tribunal, after considering the objections, is required to conduct enquiry as may be prescribed, and thereafter if satisfied that there has been an encroachment, may, by order, require 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 the order. 7. After passing an order under Section 83 (4) of the Act by the Endowments Tribunal, the Tribunal is further clothed with the Jurisdiction to execute the order when the encroacher fails to remove the encroachment as directed by the Tribunal. Sub-Section (2) of Section 84 provides for remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by any order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) of Section 83 to establish that the Charitable or religious Institution or Endowment has no title to the land, building or space. 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act provides that no appeal shall be preferred by a person who is let into the possession of land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licensee or mortgagee or Institution or Endowment. 8. A conjoint reading of provisions contained in Section 83 and 84 of the Act, particularly sub-section (4) of Section 83 read with sub-section (2) of Section 84 would manifest two situations. Firstly, that an appeal can be preferred by any person aggrieved by the order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) of Section 83 of the Act, to establish that the Charitable or religious Institution or Endowment has no title to the land, building or space; secondly, that a rank encroacher who is not asserting that the temple has no title to the land, cannot prefer an appeal. To maintain an appeal under Section 84 (2) of the Act, an averment by the person aggrieved that the temple or religious institution has no title to the land, building or space is prerequisite. 9. In the first order passed by the learned single Judge in the year 2020 also, it is observed that a person who disputes the title of the temple can only prefer the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, although, learned single Judge has added one more line, which is not provided in the Statute, that the person should also assert that he is the owner of the property. This is not the requirement of law in terms of Section 84 (2) of the Act. Be that as it may, the first order in C.M.A. (SR) No. 26086 of 2020 also in principle agrees with the legal position that the person who disputes the title of the temple can only prefer an appeal and that the other set of persons, who are only encroachers are not provided any remedy under the Act. 10. Both the Judges have taken concurrent view on this issue that a pure encroacher is not provided any right of appeal under the Act and that such remedy of appeal is available only when the person aggrieved is objecting to the title of the endowment. 11. In view of the above and since in all the writ petitions, the writ petitioners are objecting to and challenging the title of the temple by submitting that the subject land in fact is Gram Kantam land and not temple land, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 84 (2) of the Act would be maintainable. 12. All the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to prefer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 84 (2) of the Act. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.