JUDGMENT 1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Decree and Order dtd. 26/7/2022 passed in OA No.170/2015 on the file of Hon'ble A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi, at Pedakakani and set aside the same as highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and violative of Rule of Law, violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987, consequentially direct the respondents herein to sell the property to the petitioner as per acceptance @ Rs.240.00 and Rs.300.00 per square yard in the interest of justice ..." 2. a) In the affidavit it was contended, interalia, that the petitioner and 50 others occupied the land in Sy.No.233 of an extent of Ac.15.38 cents. Petitioner has been in possession of 228 square yards. Petitioner and others formed an association, which was registered under the Societies Act under the name and style of 'Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Housing Society' (for short "the Society") vide No.90 of 1986 dtd. 17/4/1986. Representation was made on behalf of society to the Government as well as to the Endowments Department. The Endowments Department at District Level including respondent No.2 made proposals to the higher authorities to sell the property in favour of petitioner and others, in possession of respective extents. b) The Commissioner, Endowments addressed a letter dtd. 22/7/1999 to the Government requesting to accord permission to respondent No.3 Temple to sell the land in favour of 37 encroachers @ Rs.300.00 per square yard. Respondent No.3 in its letter dtd. 11/2/2004 addressed to the Endowments Department requested to regularize the encroachments Ac.1.72 cents in Sy.No.233. It is also proposed by the Government that the rate should be Rs.500.00 per square yard. When the negotiations between the encroachers and the Endowments Department were going on, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.405 Revenue (Endowment-II) Department dtd. 4/7/2002 for regularization of encroachments in respect of urban properties and policy guidelines for land disposal, based on the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee. c) Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.405 dtd. 4/7/2002, the Society addressed a letter to the Government requesting to alienate the property to the encroachers for Rs.240.00 and Rs.300.00 per square yard. 4/7/2002 for regularization of encroachments in respect of urban properties and policy guidelines for land disposal, based on the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee. c) Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.405 dtd. 4/7/2002, the Society addressed a letter to the Government requesting to alienate the property to the encroachers for Rs.240.00 and Rs.300.00 per square yard. Some of the affected parties approached the High Court and filed W.P.No.21148 of 2002 and the High Court granted interim order at admission stage and the same is still pending consideration. d) Respondents 2 and 3 filed O.A.No.170 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati, under Sec. 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner and others. Petitioner contested the OA. The Tribunal vide order dtd. 26/7/2022, without considering the material available on record, ordered eviction and further directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000.00per month as damages. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3. It was contended, inter alia, that respondent No.3-Temple is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.15-38 cents in Sy.No.233, Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District, which was donated by Namburu Venkatappaiah and others for Akhandam (Akhanda Deepardadhana), Nitya Naivedyam etc. The petitioner herein is admitting title of the Temple over the schedule land. The petitioner's family occupied the land in an extent of 228 square yards in survey No.233 of Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District, belonging to Temple, as such petitioner has no subsisting right over the Temple land. Long possession of land belong to Endowments does not confer any right. Petitioner is encroacher under Sec. 83 of the Act. The Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, passed eviction orders and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000.00towards arrears of rent and petitioner failed to comply with the said order. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri N. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Smt.P.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 -Temple. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and others occupied the land belonging to the Temple about 70 years back and they have been in possession and enjoyment of respective plots. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and others occupied the land belonging to the Temple about 70 years back and they have been in possession and enjoyment of respective plots. He would also submit that the Endowments Commissioner addressed letter dtd. 22/7/1999 to accord permission to the Executive Officer of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri to sell away Ac.1.63% cents in D.No.233 of Mangalagiri Town in favour of 37 encroachers @ Rs.300.00 per square yard by way of private negotiations to regularize the encroachments. He would submit that the Executive Officer of the Temple addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary on 5/12/2002 seeking clarification regarding G.O.Ms.No.405, regarding alienation of plots in favour of encroachers. He would also submit that none of the documents filed along with writ petition were considered by the Tribunal and thus prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Temple and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, supported the order of the Tribunal. 7. Now, the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the petitioner is termed as encroacher under Sec. 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987? If so, whether he is liable to be evicted? 2) Whether the order dtd. 26/7/2022 in O.A.No.170 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati is liable to be set aside? 8. Respondents 2 and 3 being the petitioners filed O.A.No.170 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati to pass eviction orders against the respondent therein (petitioner herein) and further to direct the respondent (petitioner herein) to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule property to the petitioner No.2-Temple. 9. It was pleaded that an extent of Ac.15.38 cents in D.No.233 of Mangalagiri Town was endowed by Namburu Venkatappayya, S/o Seetha Ramaiah to respondent No.3-Temple by way of a Donation Deed dtd. 6/2/1890 vide document No.282 of 1890. The Property Register of the Temple, approved vide R.Dis.No.A5/10591/2009 dtd. 17/12/2009, shows that the property belonged to the temple. Out of total extent, Ac.4.00 cents was acquired for establishment of Government Hospital; in Ac.2.00 cents of land, TTD Kalyana Mandapam was constructed; in Ac.0.40 cents, R and B Road was laid leading to Tenali and in Ac.4.00 cents of land, Temple Choultry and vacant land around it, are existing. 17/12/2009, shows that the property belonged to the temple. Out of total extent, Ac.4.00 cents was acquired for establishment of Government Hospital; in Ac.2.00 cents of land, TTD Kalyana Mandapam was constructed; in Ac.0.40 cents, R and B Road was laid leading to Tenali and in Ac.4.00 cents of land, Temple Choultry and vacant land around it, are existing. The remaining land was encroached by several people. Respondent No.3 herein got issued a legal notice dtd. 20/10/2012 to all the encroachers to vacate and hand over possession of the encroached portion of land. Later O.A. was filed under Sec. 83 of the Act. 10. Petitioner herein being the respondent in O.A. filed counter. Counter averments are reiteration of contents of writ affidavit. Hence, they need not be specifically extracted. 11. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, on behalf of petitioners therein, Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondent therein. Junior Assistant of the Temple was examined as P.W.1 and the writ petitioner was examined as R.W.1. 12. Ex.P-2 is a copy of donation deed dtd. 6/2/1890 under which Ac.15.38 cents of land was donated to the Temple. Ex.P-3 is the extract of Approved Property Register of the Temple. The writ petitioner pleaded that petitioner and others have been in possession of respective extents for the last 70 years. Even to plead and prove adverse possession, petitioner should establish acquisition of right by adverse possession by 30/9/1951. 13. Case at hand, petitioner never claimed adverse possession and in fact, the material papers filed along with writ petition (no documents were filed or marked in OA), would disclose that petitioner and others are requesting to alienate the encroached portion. 14. Even to plead and prove adverse possession, petitioner should establish acquisition of right by adverse possession by 30/9/1951. 13. Case at hand, petitioner never claimed adverse possession and in fact, the material papers filed along with writ petition (no documents were filed or marked in OA), would disclose that petitioner and others are requesting to alienate the encroached portion. 14. It is apt to extract Sec. 83 of the Act, which reads thus: Sec. 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 1[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) ---- 15. A perusal of the definition, in the absence of valid lease, mortgage or license, if any person is continuing the property belonging to institution the said person will be termed as encroacher. The case at hand, petitioner did not file any document to prove that his possession over the land is by way of lease or license etc., In the absence of same, petitioner can be termed as encroacher and his possession is not valid in the eye of law. 16. The Tribunal considered all the aspects and eventually ordered eviction. Unless and until there is alienation in favour of petitioner under Sec. 80 of the Act, the petitioner will be treated as an encroacher only. 16. The Tribunal considered all the aspects and eventually ordered eviction. Unless and until there is alienation in favour of petitioner under Sec. 80 of the Act, the petitioner will be treated as an encroacher only. 17. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11812 of 2005 passed an interim order, whereby directed the authorities not to alienate the properties without prior permission. The Tribunal considered all these aspects. This Court does not find any irregularity and illegally in the order passed by the Tribunal brooks interference of this Court. There are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.