ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “.......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. Commissioner of Endowments vide its proceedings Memo in R.C. No. B2/24390/2014, dated 30.03.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of power and against the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders.....” 2. Heard Mr. J.V. Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3; Ms. Padmavati Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that one Sri Gopaluni Purushothama Sharma Pakyaji purchased an extent of 583½ sq. yds at Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada through a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1940 with the funds of donors as a Trustee for construction of temple called Sri Kasi Annapurna Sahita Visweswara Swamy, but the same could not be done, as one Siripurapu Venkata Ramanaiah was constructing the Visweswara Swamy idol along with other deities adjacent plot No. 36. Therefore, a resolution passed to construct a Kalyana Mandapam under the name and style of Sri Seetharama Kalyana Mandapam in the said plot and appointed Sri Bhogeswara Sharma, the son of Purushothama Sharma Pakayaji as Trustee after his death, who constructed the Kalyana Mandapam. One Smt. T. Seethamma @ Kausalyamma styling herself as the owner of the same plot in which Kalyana Mandapam was constructed by Bhogeswara Sarma and others, executed a Will Deed in the year 1957 bequeathing the property in favour of T. Sri Rama Sarma, her adopted son without any manner of right and title. In fact, Smt. Seethamma was not the owner or donor of the land on which 4th respondent is constructed and she is only donor of Sivalingam in the premises of Prasannanjaneya Swamy temple and donated her agricultural land an extent of Ac. 2.28 cents out of Ac. 5.28 cents situated Muchellapadu Village, Guntur District to the temple and later said Prasannanjaneya Swamy Temple terms as Sri Kasi Visweswara Temple. 2.28 cents out of Ac. 5.28 cents situated Muchellapadu Village, Guntur District to the temple and later said Prasannanjaneya Swamy Temple terms as Sri Kasi Visweswara Temple. Therefore, the said Seethamma or her adopted son does not get any right, title or possession and she also executed a Trust Deed in the year 1957. The said T. Sri Rama Sarma, representing himself as Trustee of Kasi Visweswaraya Swamy Temple, basing on the Will Deed executed by Smt. Seethamma filed a suit in O.S. No. 2023/1974 on the file of I Additional District Magistrate’s Court, Vijayawada against one Sri Dammalapati Rama Rao, who was doing medical practice in part of the Kalayana Mandapam for eviction by showing Sri Rama Rao as tenant, which was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, A.S. No. 45 of 1977 filed on the file of District Judge, Vijayawada, which was disposed of in terms of compromise in between the parties on 28.02.1981 holding that Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple is different and Kalyanamandapam is different entities with regard to administration, management etc., Before compromise, the Trust Board passed resolution under the Charimanship of Sri Maturi Koti Ratnam dated 16.04.1980 resolved to give power to Sri B.S. Samabasiva Rao, with the assistance of Department for purpose of recovering the possession of Ac. 2.28 cents in D. No. 211/2 of Kuchallapadu which was donated by late Smt. Tadepalli Kausalyamma @ Seethamma to the temple and to lease the land to collect lease amounts etc. 4. Sri T. Sri Rama Sasrma representing as Hereditary Trustee of Sri Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple filed O.A. No. 46 of 1976 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, seeking eviction of Sri D. Rama Rao and Sri G. Bhogeswara Sarma from 583 1/3 Sq.yds, in which Kalyana Mandapam has been constructed. The said O.A. was dismissed on 26.04.1984 in view of judgment passed in A.S. No. 45 of 1977, which became final. After 9 years of the judgment in the Appeal, Sri D. Rama Rao filed L.G.C. No. 15 of 1993 before the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, which was dismissed on 26.10.1994 in view of the judgment in A.S. No. 45 of 1977 and by holding that the petitioner temple is not the owner of the petition schedule property. When the matter was decided by the Special Court, the title, right, interest and possession are decided in favour of Sri Seethamma Kalyana Mandapam and it has become final and binding on the Endowments Department. None of the donors or the Trustee Sri Bhogeswara Sarma executed any document in favour of Endowments Department, therefore, the property was no transferred to Endowments Department at any point of time. 5. While the matter stood thus, the Manager of Sri Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple, after nearly 14 years after the L.G.C. was dismissed, again filed O.A. No. 130 of 2009 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada against Sri G.V. Purushothama Sarma S/o Bhogeswara Sarma seeking eviction by suppressing the facts, even though O.A. is not maintainable, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments entertained the same and passed exparte order directing Sri G. Purushothama Sarma to remove the encroachment and hand over the possession of the subject property within 30 days vide order dated 16.02.2010 without looking to earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada in O.A. No. 46 of 1976 and the judgment in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1993. Revision Petition No. 4 of 2010 was filed before the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, which was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada. After remand, O.A. No. 130 of 2009 was dismissed by order dated 05.06.2010. Assailing the W.P. No. 19640 of 2010 to declare the order passed in R.P. No. 4 of 2010 is illegal and arbitrary and this Court allowed the writ petition without going into merits of the case. Assailing the same W.A. No. 89 of 2015, which was dismissed on 10.02.2015. Assailing the same, C.M.A. No. 15 of 1993 dated 26.10.1994. 6. While the matter stood thus, after knowing the said facts, passing of the above proceedings vide Rc. No. B2/24390/2014, dated 30.03.2015 the petitioner made representations dated 22.04.2016 and 30.04.2016 to consider the facts and circumstances and withdraw the order passed vide Rc. No. B2/24390/2014, dated 30.03.2015 and restore the earlier order vide D. Dis. No. G2/38056/2010, dated 20.08.2010, but the authorities not considered their request and creating havoc at the premises of Sri Seetharama Kalyana Mandapam, Satynarayanapuram, Vijayawada. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.03.2015 is liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed. 7. No. G2/38056/2010, dated 20.08.2010, but the authorities not considered their request and creating havoc at the premises of Sri Seetharama Kalyana Mandapam, Satynarayanapuram, Vijayawada. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.03.2015 is liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed. 7. Per contra, 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the Government issued Memo dated 19.05.2020 agreed to the proposal of handing over the subject Kalyanamandapam, which belongs to the 4th respondent/temple to Sri Bhuaveneswari Peetham, Keesarapalli subject to withdrawal of all writ petitions including this writ petition. Pursuant to the said orders, the 2nd respondent issued Memo dated 02.07.2020 Accordingly, the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent has handover the subject Kalyanamandapam on 06.07.2020 to D. Chandrasekhar who is claiming as Dharmadhikari of Sri Bhuavenswari Peetham by believing the promise made by D. Chandrasekhar to withdraw this writ petition, but he did not withdraw this writ petition. It is further contended that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 20.08.2010 were issued based on judgment dated 05.06.2010 in O.A. No. 130 of 2009 of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada. This Court set aside the order dated 05.06.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada in O.A. No. 19640 of 2010 in this Writ Petition. The said eviction order dated 16.02.2010 were also confirmed by this Court in C.M.A. No. 130 of 2015 dated 24.03.2014. In the interest of the institution, the 2nd respondent issued order vide Memo dated 30.03.2015 withdrawing the earlier order issued in D. Dis. No. G2/38056/2010, dated 20.08.2010 and directing the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada to take necessary action in the matter. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 8. It is further contended that this Court set aside the Memo dated 19.05.2020 and consequential proceedings of the Commissioner dated 02.07.2020 in W.P. No. 11859 of 2020 with a direction to Sri Bhuavaneswari Peetham to hand over the Kalyanamandapam to the 4th respondent within four weeks, but same could not be done till yet inspite of several demands and written representations by the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the same. 9. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the same. 9. Per contra, the 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the managing trustee is not vested with any matter of right in alienating the property. The trust deed shows that the property shall always vests with the trust alone and the trustees have no manner of right to deal with the property which she got by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 07.11.1940. The then trustee of 4th respondent temple filed a suit in O.S. No. 2023 of 1974 against Dammalapati Rama Rao for eviction and eviction was ordered. Assailing the same A.S. No. 45 of 1977 has been filed and obtained collusive compromise decree under Section 79 of Act 17 of 1966, which is corresponding Section 89 of Endowments Act 30 of 1987. By virtue of Endowments Act 1987, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit proceedings where specific provisions are made in the Endowments Act. Hence, earlier judgments by civil courts are not binding and they are without jurisdiction and more over the alleged compromise decree in A.S. No. 45 of 1977 is not in accordance with law and the provisions of Endowments Act 17 of 1966. The tribunal has not decided the title in O.A. No. 46 of 1976 as stated in Para 5 of the order therein. Therefore, O.A. No. 46 of 1976 has no bearing with present dispute or in any of the proceedings in O.A. No. 130 of 2009 etc. The Land Grabbing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1993 and it will not operate as res judicata. The findings in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1993 are not independent findings and whatever findings are given they are based only on the collusive alleged compromise decree in A.S. No. 45 of 1977. Under Section 91 of Endowments Act no Revision lies against the orders passed under Section 83(4) of Endowments Act 30/87 and if there is any dispute with regard to the title previously only suit before the civil court under Section 84(2) is maintainable and at present appeal to be filed before this Court. Under Section 91 of Endowments Act no Revision lies against the orders passed under Section 83(4) of Endowments Act 30/87 and if there is any dispute with regard to the title previously only suit before the civil court under Section 84(2) is maintainable and at present appeal to be filed before this Court. The alleged remand order and the subsequent orders in O.A. No. 130 of 2009, dated 16.02.2010 are not valid and that this Court as per order in W.P. No. 19640 of 2010, dated 07.11.2014 gave clear findings setting aside the orders in R.P. No. 4 of 2010 and the O.A. No. 130 of 2009, directing Mr. G.V. Purushotham @ Gopaluni Purushotham Sarma to approach this Court challenging the order passed in W.P. No. 19640 of 2010, dated 07.11.2014 vide W.A. No. 89 of 2015 is filed and the same is also dismissed on 10.02.2015 with a liberty to file appeal. Thereafter C.M.A. No. 130 of 2015 was filed and same is also dismissed dated 24.03.2015. Thereafter the Kalyana Mandapam was taken over by the 4th respondent on 27.03.2015. 10. It is further contended that the petitioner never managed the Kalyana Mandapam and according to the orders in O.A. No. 130 of 2009, dated 16.02.2010 confirmed in C.M.A. No. 130 of 2015, dated 24.03.2015 and orders passed in A.S. No. 45 of 1977, dated 26.04.1994 and judgment in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1993 as already set aside by the order of this Court in W.P. No. 19640 of 2010 and confirmed in W.A. No. 89 of 2015, hence the issue is decided by this Court, which against the petitioner and that having lost all the litigation, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 14942 of 2015 filed seeking relief to conduct the religious programme in the Mandapam like thread marriages and other functions and obtained interim order directed not to demolish the Kalyana Mandapam. The Commissioner, Endowments Department after considering all the facts and decision of this Court has issued Memo dated 30.03.2015 withdrawing the order dated 20.08.2010, wherein pending the W.P. No. 19640 of 2010 the Commissioner has directed not to interfere with the Kalayana Mandapam. After disposal of all the cases, the competent authority has withdrawn the order dated 20.08.2010 and issued proceedings dated 30.03.2015, hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the competent authority dated 30.03.2015. After disposal of all the cases, the competent authority has withdrawn the order dated 20.08.2010 and issued proceedings dated 30.03.2015, hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the competent authority dated 30.03.2015. It is further contended that against the orders passed in C.M.A. No. 130 of 2015, dated 24.03.2015 filed SLP (C) No. 17253 of 2015 is filed and against the order passed in W.A. No. 89 of 2015, dated 10.02.2015 SLP (C) No. 20755 of 2015 is filed and no interim order granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is pending adjudication. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. The 5th respondent is impleaded as party respondent as per orders of this Court in I.A. No. 3 of 2024, dated 10.09.2024 in this writ petition and mainly contended that he is an ardent devotee of 4th respondent temple and he is having interest as defined under Section 2(18) of Act 30/87 and he was Ex-Chairman of the 4th respondent temple. The 4th respondent temple is the absolute owner and possessor of Sri Sitarama Kalyanamandapam situated at Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada abutting to the 4th respondent temple. There are several cases in between the 4th respondent and petitioner with regard to subject land and finally the matter went to Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 17253 of 2015 and SLP (C) No. 20755 of 2015, which are dismissed by granting liberty to Mr. G.V. Purushottama Sarma to approach the Civil court for declaration of title. Thereafter no action was taken by him. As such the order passed by the tribunal in O.A. No. 130 of 2009 dated 16.02.2010 became final. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the same. 12. Perused the record. 13. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemanth Vimalnath Narichania and Others, AIR 2010 SC 3745 wherein it was held as follows: “13........this Court held that, the power to review is not an inherent power. It is must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. It is must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in absence of any statutory provision for the same is nullity being without jurisdiction.” 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.” 14. In Naresh Kumar and Others v. Government NCT of Delhi, (2019) 9 SCC 416 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules to permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting in express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. [Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanarao Khanderao Jambekar, AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 641 ].” 15. Further, he relied on a decision in Gas Authority of India Limited v. The Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector, Gas Authority of India Ltd. and Others, AIR 1997 A.P. 284 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “7. It is well settled and learned single Judge has also accepted it as a sound principle of law that a statutory authority or Tribunal cannot review or reopen any order made by it. Power to review is always granted to such authorities by express provision of law. They do not have the inherent power to review their acts or orders as the Courts prossess. No statute has been brought to out notice, under which the competent authority under the Act, is empowered to review or reopen his own act or order. If successors in-office start finding fault with the acts o the predecessors in-office and start reopening all that the predecessors have done, it will be impossible to limit recall of order of one successor of the order by his predecessor.......” 16. If successors in-office start finding fault with the acts o the predecessors in-office and start reopening all that the predecessors have done, it will be impossible to limit recall of order of one successor of the order by his predecessor.......” 16. In M.V. Janardhan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank and Another, 2008 (0) Supreme (SC) 188 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court held at Para 25 that an order passed by an officer having no authority of law has no effect. It neither creates any right in favour of a party for whom such order is made nor imposes any obligation on the opposite party against whom it was passed. And relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 748 wherein it was held as follows: “15......Where an authority making Order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and viod ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very authority to pass any Order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties......” 17. In Union of India v. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. (2018) 13 SCC 219 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Para 10 that “Audi Alteram Partem, as the basic principle of natural justice ensures an opportunity of fair hearing to the parties. Issuance of a show cause notice is a part and parcel of the aforesaid principle which provides that the parties are in a position to defendant them-self adequately; after being aware of the exactness of the allegations against them.” In Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2024 SC 1265 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “19. We are of the opinion that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice. ............... 22. The temporal gap between the impugned illegal or arbitrary action and their subsequent adjudication by the courts introduces complexities in the provision of restitution. As time elapse, the status of persons, possession, and promises undergoes transformation, directly influencing the nature of relief that may be formulated and granted. 23. The inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap between the illegal impugned action and restitution is certainly not rooted in deficiencies within the law or legal jurisprudence but rather in systemic issues inherent in the adversarial judicial process......” 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submitted that the entire litigation has been started by the temple relying upon a will trust deed purported to have been executed by one Smt. Seethamma in favour of her adopted son T. Sri Rama Sarma as managing trustee in respect of subject Kalyana Mandapam. But it is not true that the title of the property is traced to a registered document dated 07.11.1940 wherein 16 donors purchased the Kalyana Mandapam property to construct Sri Kasi Annapurna Sahitha Visweswswara Swamy Temple in Plot No. 37. Therefore, the Seethamma inherited the property is false and incorrect. However, a temple with same name is constructed in adjacent property i.e. in Plot No. 36. Therefore the previous management of the temple filed several cases against the management of the subject Kalyanamandapam. One of them was ended in compromise and all other ended in favour of the management of the Kalyana Mandapam, which is presently under the management of Bhuvaneswari Peetham. 19. The respondent/temple filed O.A. No. 130 of 2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinda, which was allowed ex parte. Thereafter, the same is reopened and remanded to the Deputy Commissioner by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinda, who passed fresh order, dismissing the O.A filed by the respondent/ temple. 19. The respondent/temple filed O.A. No. 130 of 2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinda, which was allowed ex parte. Thereafter, the same is reopened and remanded to the Deputy Commissioner by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinda, who passed fresh order, dismissing the O.A filed by the respondent/ temple. Thereafter, the respondent/ temple filed W.P. No. 19640 of 2010 and the same was allowed on technical aspects and the matter was carried up to Apex Court by the petitioner, but failed. As on the date, merits found by the civil courts are not disturbed and they hold good except on the technical aspects that the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada has no authority to remand the matter to Deputy Commissioner, which lead to passing of fresh order in favour of the petitioner. As such, exparte order passed in favour of the management of the temple is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition. 20. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in the additional affidavit that assailing the order passed in W.A. No. 89 of 2015, dated 10.02.2015, SLP (C) No. 20755 of 2015 has been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which same was dismissed on 17.05.2018 granted liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the civil court for declaration of the title in accordance with law and if any suit is filed, the trial court is directed to consider the same on merits without being influenced by any of the observation made by the court. A copy of the order is placed on record. Even though, the said Mr. G.V. Purushotham Sharma has filed three writ petitions through Mr. D. Chandrasekhar with different reliefs, which are pending, except this Court granted interim direction in this writ petition to allow them to conduct marriages as usual and not to demolish the Kalyanamandapam. Therefore, once Hon’ble Apex Court directed to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of title, neither G.V. Purushothama Sharma or third parties have no right to claim relief or ownership over the Kalyana mandapam. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. As could be seen from the record, it is evident that there are series of litigations in respect of the subject matter from Tribunal to Hon’ble Apex Court in different stages. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. As could be seen from the record, it is evident that there are series of litigations in respect of the subject matter from Tribunal to Hon’ble Apex Court in different stages. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 20755 of 2015, dated 17.05.2018 categorically held that the Hon’ble Apex Court have not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by this Court and however granted liberty to Mr. G.V. Purushotham Sarma to approach the civil court for declaration of the title in accordance with law and further directed the trial court to consider the same on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made the courts. 22. In the light of specific direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 20755 of 2015, dated 17.05.2018, the petitioner instead of approaching the trial court for declaration of the title over the subject property in accordance with law, filing this writ petition is improper and it shows that the petitioner unnecessarily litigate the matter and protracting the issue for unlimited period by filing series of cases in round and round from years together. Under these circumstances, the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is also nothing but speculative litigation in the eye of law and that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 23. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.