JUDGMENT : 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 action of the respondents in keeping the petitioners property admeasuring Ac.1.01 cents in Sy.No.189/2 situated at Lankelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in the prohibitory list as per Section 22(A)(1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the principles of natural justice, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the subject property from the prohibitory list as per Section 22(A)(1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908 and pass such other orders....” 2. Heard Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner company is the absolute owner and possessor of the land measuring Ac.1.01 cents in Sy.No.189/2 of Lankelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed dated 06.07.2010 from its respective owner, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and obtained approved plan from the VUDA vide proceedings dated 18.09.2010. The Tahsildar, Parawada, has given certificate vide proceedings dated 14.08.2008 certifying that the subject land is Zeroythi land. The petitioner has entered into a lease agreement with the Visakha Milk Producers Company dated 27.11.2018 for leasing out the Ice Cream manufacturing plant and missionary for a period of 90 months or 7 and half years. Surprisingly the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam has issued an eviction notice dated 27.10.2021 through the 4th respondent/Executive Officer. Thereafter the petitioner was called to the office of the 3rd respondent and threatened with dire consequences, unless he agree with the title of the temple and give an undertaking agreeing the title and requesting for lease for a period of 11 years the petitioner company will be closed. Since the petitioner had no option, he was constrained to sign on the undated undertaking prepared by the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam by name Ms. Santhi, requesting to grant lease of his own land and issued order dated 04.01.2022. Since the petitioner had no option, he was constrained to sign on the undated undertaking prepared by the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam by name Ms. Santhi, requesting to grant lease of his own land and issued order dated 04.01.2022. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.08.2024 to the 2nd respondent requesting to get back his property after enquire into the matter pursuing all the documents and to delete the property from the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A(1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed, questioning the action of the respondents in this writ petition. 4. During hearing learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 placed on record the written instructions dated 28.11.2024 submitted by the 3rd respondent that after enquiry and verification of Revenue Records it is entered in Section 43 Register that the temple owns an extent of Acs.10.13 cents in S.No.189 and Acs.6.20 cents in Sy.No.190/1 situated at Lankelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli District. As per the Settlement Register of Lankelapalem Village, Sri Paradesamma Ammavaru is the absolute owner of landed property to an extent of Acs.10.13 cents in Sy.No.189 and Acs.6.20 cents in Sy.No.190/1. The said land was already notified under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of Registration Act, prohibiting any transactions whatsoever. The said land squarely belongs to the temple. It is further contended that the petitioner has informed that the land belongs to the Endowments Department and asked to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards damages for his use and occupation and also requested to lease out the land in favour of him, he has submitted a letter to express his willing to pay the said amount. The petitioner is a lease holder in Sy.No.189 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents to an extent as a part he is an encroacher earlier also before his willing to pay damages and Lease permission request, other remaining extent in Sy.No.189 was under encroachments and filed OAs before A.P. Endowments Tribunal with OA Nos.121 of 2022, 13 of 2022, 123 of 2022 and 122 of 2023 pending. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. Section 87 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in short “the Endowments Act”), which reproduced hereunder : “87. [Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. Section 87 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in short “the Endowments Act”), which reproduced hereunder : “87. [Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters. [Substituted by Act No.33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] (1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question. (a) whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment; (b) whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment; (c) whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment; (d) whether any property is a specific endowment; (e) whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honor, ‘emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter; (f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; or (g) where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses; (h) whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment. (2) The Endowments Tribunal may, pending its decision under sub-section (1), pass such order as it deems fit for the administration of the property or custody of the money belonging to the institution or endowment. (2) The Endowments Tribunal may, pending its decision under sub-section (1), pass such order as it deems fit for the administration of the property or custody of the money belonging to the institution or endowment. (3) The Endowments Tribunal may while recording its decision under sub-section (1) and pending implementation of such decision, pass such interim order as it may deem fit for safeguarding the interest of the institution or endowment and for preventing damage to or loss or misappropriation or criminal breach of trust in respect of the properties or moneys belonging to or in the possession of the institution or endowment. (4) The presumption in respect of matters covered by clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in sub-section (1) is that the institution or the endowment is a public one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the endowment to be private or the property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment, as the case may be. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub-sections the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.]” 7. Section 88 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 the Right of appeal against the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87. [Substituted by Act No.33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] “Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 and Section 119 may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of the decision prefer an appeal to the High Court.” 8. As per Sections 87 and 88 of the ‘Endowments Act’, it is very clear that the Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question. Such exercise could not be done in the instant case. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is an encroacher earlier in respect of the land in Sy.No.189 to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and he himself willing to pay damages and lease permission request, other remaining extent in Sy.No.189 was under encroachments and filed O.As., before the Tribunal, which are pending. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is an encroacher earlier in respect of the land in Sy.No.189 to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and he himself willing to pay damages and lease permission request, other remaining extent in Sy.No.189 was under encroachments and filed O.As., before the Tribunal, which are pending. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereunder: “(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without- (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the Counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated. (4) The power conferred on a High Court by this Article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.” 10. In the instant case, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal before the learned Tribunal in respect of subject land, so far and further the petitioner is now questioning the action of the respondents in placing the subject land in prohibited property list maintained under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, which is not maintainable by invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as contended by learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 11. Section 83 of the Endowments Act deals with eviction of encroachment, which reproduced hereunder : “83. Encroachment of land, building, or any property belonging to a charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroacher.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the encroachment of land, building, or any property of a charitable or religious institution or endowment is prohibited. Encroachment of land, building, or any property belonging to a charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroacher.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the encroachment of land, building, or any property of a charitable or religious institution or endowment is prohibited. (2) The Executive Officer of the Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment or the Assistant Commissioner or any authority higher in rank thereof, shall, by notice, require the encroacher to remove the encroachment as hereinafter provided : Provided that the encroacher shall be entitled to submit reply/explanation to such notice within one week from the date of receipt of such notice, which shall be duly considered and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed : (a) Either withdrawing the notice issued and dropping further proceedings; or (b) Affirming the notice and duly stipulating the time within which such encroachment shall be removed. (3) If the encroacher fails to remove the encroachment within such stipulated period, the authority who issued the notice shall remove the encroachment with police assistance, if necessary and recover the cost of removal from the encroacher. (4) For the purpose of securing police assistance, the authority concerned shall approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police who shall thereupon provide such police assistance as is deemed necessary for the removal of encroachment. (5) Any act of encroachment including the attempt to encroach shall be a cognizable offence, non-bailable and triable as a warrant case, in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to eight years and with fine which may extend to Rupees one lakh. ...............” 12. And also 84 of the Endowments Act provides mode of eviction on failure of removal of the encroachments as directed by the Endowments Tribunal. [Substituted by Act No.33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] (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 any order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) of Section 83 from preferring an appeal before the High Court to establish that the Charitable and 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 sub-section (4) of Section 83 : Provided further that no such appeal shall be preferred by a person who is let in to the possession of land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licensee or mortgagee of Institution or Endowment.] 13. As could be seen from the material available on record and also considering the submissions of both the Counsel, it appears that there is a serious dispute involved in between the petitioner and 4th respondent with regard to title over the subject land. The petitioner has not chosen to approach Endowments Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, where similar matters are being pending therein. Since the 4th respondent is claiming the subject land as their land, the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Endowments Tribunal as per the ‘Endowments Act’. An appeal lies against the Award passed by the ‘Endowments Tribunal’ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in the instant case is not comes under purview of under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 14. In view of the procedure as contemplated under ‘Endowments Act’ cited supra, question of directing the respondents to direct the respondents to release the subject property from the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 does not arise at this juncture. 15. Therefore, it is suffice it, to issue a direction to the petitioner to approach learned Endowments Tribunal for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such submission, the learned Endowments Tribunal is directed to protect the interest of the petitioner till disposal of interlocutory application filed by the petitioners in OA. On such submission, the learned Endowments Tribunal is directed to protect the interest of the petitioner till disposal of interlocutory application filed by the petitioners in OA. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the subject land till then. 16. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.