ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The petitioner challenges the interference of respondent No.5-Executive Officer of the Temple, with the tenement (Municipal No. 19- 4-367, 3433 sq. yards) at Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. 2. Heard Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case at hand, so far as relevant for the purpose of this writ petition can be stated as follows : 4. The subject property i.e., Municipal No. 19-4-367 (3433 sq.yards/2929.98 sq. meters) at Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, was originally leased to the petitioner's father, Sri Sita Ram Heda, by Respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 24.11.1980 at Rs. 500/month, and thereafter the rent was enhanced from time to time, which was being paid regularly without default. In 2015, construction of storeroom, staff room, and gate was permitted, with rent raised to Rs. 25,000/month. Initially, the petitioner's father ran M/s. Pawan Parking Place. Post-2015, he ran M/s. Heda Associates, dealing in Iron, Steel, MTS Bars, and Cement. The petitioner proposed extending the premises from 80 x 60 to 100 x 80 feet, offering an additional Rs.10,000/month, but received no response. Instead, a Caution Notice was placed on the Gate on 05.11.2020, claiming the ownership of temple and prohibiting vehicle entry. The petitioner's father died on 10.12.2020, and the petitioner continues the business in the subject premises. Respondent No.5 issued a Final Notice on 19.02.2021 (served on 20.02.2021), demanding vacation of premises within 7 days. The petitioner asserts that Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987, grants jurisdiction to the Assistant Commissioner to act against encroachers, either suo motu or upon complaint from the Trustee. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Telangana High Court in K. Ranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [ 2020 (5) ALT 187 ] , which followed the Division Bench’s Order in Writ Petitions No. 34361, 39013, and 39151 of 2016. The court held that encroachment cases must be reported to the Endowments Tribunal, which must issue Notice and hear the alleged encroacher before passing orders for removal of alleged encroachment in accordance with Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987. The court held that encroachment cases must be reported to the Endowments Tribunal, which must issue Notice and hear the alleged encroacher before passing orders for removal of alleged encroachment in accordance with Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987. Due to threats of dispossession by Respondent No. 5, the petitioner filed WP No. 4572/2021, which was disposed of on 04.03.2021. The court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2 nd respondent-Endowment Commissioner, with supporting documents. The Commissioner was directed to verify records, hear both parties, and pass a comprehensive order within four weeks. The petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No. 2 on 16.03.2021. A notice was issued on 09.08.2021, scheduling a meeting on 21.08.2021. The petitioner attended the meeting, and the matter was reserved for orders. Respondent No. 5 collected rent up to July 2021 on 20.08.2021. On 27.08.2021, at around 9:15 PM, Respondent No.5, along with 10-12 persons and a JCB vehicle (No. AP20Q 4082), removed some vehicles from the petitioner’s parking area without notice. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Bahadurpura. 5. Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that the actions of respondent No. 5 violate the statutory provision under Section 83 of the Act which mandates that encroachment cases must be reported to the Endowments Tribunal, which is required to issue notice and hear the alleged encroacher before passing any orders for removal. Learned counsel refers to Section 83 of the Act, which reads as follows: "Section 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 o? 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. 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, [ft] 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 sub-section (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. (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. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent No.5, does not have any authority to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner herein, more particularly without following the procedure prescribed by the law. 6. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Telangana High Court in K. Ranga Rao (supra) and submits that encroachment cases must be adjudicated by the Endowments Tribunal, and no eviction can take place without proper notice and hearing and as impugned action of respondent No.5 is contrary to this binding precedent, the same is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner filed W.P.No.4572/2021, and this Court while disposing of the writ petition on 04.03.2021, permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2 nd respondent, directed the Commissioner to verify records, hear both parties, and pass a comprehensive order within four weeks. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the order dated 04.03.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.03.2021, and a meeting was scheduled for 21.08.2021, however, before any orders could be passed respondent No. 5 along with 10-12 persons and a JCB vehicle, forcibly removed vehicles from the petitioner’s parking area on 27.08.2021, without any notice or authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.5 is not competent authority under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987, and has no jurisdiction to issue eviction notices or take coercive action against the petitioner. The petitioner has cooperated with the authorities and paid rent up to July 2021, as evidenced by the receipt issued on 20.08.2021. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner’s business, which has been operating for decades, is under threat due to the illegal and forcible removal of vehicles by respondent No.5 and the threat of dispossession caused significant financial and reputational harm to the petitioner, and the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Bahadurpura Station House Officer. 7. Learned Government Pleader, basing on the counter affidavit, contends that the petitioner’s case involves a dispute over possession of land belonging to a public religious institution, the Temple, registered under the Endowments Act. 7. Learned Government Pleader, basing on the counter affidavit, contends that the petitioner’s case involves a dispute over possession of land belonging to a public religious institution, the Temple, registered under the Endowments Act. The temple, classified as a Category-6(b) institution, is managed by an Executive Officer appointed by the Endowments Department. The temple owns agricultural and vacant lands, including premises bearing Municipal No. 19-4-367, admeasuring 3433 Sq. Yds., in Attapur village and other areas. The petitioner’s father, Sri Sitaram Heda, leased the premises in 1980 for 5 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The rent was later enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- and then to Rs. 15,000/- by 2015. In 2010, the temple’s administration was taken over by the Department from Sri Rajkumar Bharatlal, a member of the founder family. The petitioner’s father was issued a notice on 28-11-2019 to furnish lease approval documents or vacate within 7 days under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987. He replied on 10-12-2019, claiming regular rent payments and requesting no inconvenience. However, no resolution was reached. A subsequent notice on 05-11-2020 demanded vacation due to unauthorized possession, and 3000 Sq. Yds. were taken over, leaving the petitioner with 433 Sq. Yds. The petitioner owes Rs. 1,07,500/- in rental dues. A final notice on 19-02-2021 gave the petitioner 7 days to vacate, failing which legal action under the Endowments Act would be initiated. The petitioner’s claim that the Executive Officer lacks authority to interfere is contested as baseless. The petitioner had previously filed W.P.No.4572 of 2021, disposed of on 04-03-2021, allowing him to approach the Commissioner with a representation. Learned Government Pleader submits that this writ petition is barred by res judicata due to the earlier order dated 04.03.2021 in W.P.No.4572 of 2021. 8. Having considered the respective submissions, it may be noted that the petitioner previously approached this Court in WP No.4572 of 2021, with the very same grievance of eviction from the subject property on the ground that the petitioner’s father has been initially granted lease and its forty years now that the lease has been on month- to-month basis, and the authorities are bound to follow Section 83 of the Endowments Act, even in the case of encroachers. This Court by order dated 04.03.2021 disposed of the writ petition observing as follows: “4. This Court by order dated 04.03.2021 disposed of the writ petition observing as follows: “4. In view of the above submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent – The Commissioner, Endowment Department and submit representation enclosing the relevant documents in support of his contentions and on such representation, the 2nd respondent – The Commissioner, Endowment Department shall verify the records available with the Endowment Department and after giving an opportunity to the respondent No.5 – Sri Murali Manohar Swamy temple, and after verifying their records, to pass comprehensive order. This Exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possibly preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry before the 2nd respondent – The Commissioner, Endowment Department.” 9. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2021, the petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent Commissioner, whereafter the 2nd respondent passed order dated 04.10.2021 rejecting the request for extension of lease. The relevant portion of order of 2nd respondent reads as follows: “In the reference 6 th cited notice has issued to the petitioner i.e., Sri Brij Gopal Heda and the Executive officer, Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Temple, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad are hereby informed to attend before the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad on 21 st August 2021 at 4:00 pm, along with relevant documents and connected records without fail. Accordingly the petitioner i.e., Sri Brij Gopal Heda and the Executive officer, Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Temple, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad along with the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad have attend before the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad on 21 st August 2021. The petitioner have submitted a deposition vide reference 7 th cited stating that he is ready to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- P.M. towards rent to an extent of 3433 sq.yds to run the building material, pre-owed cars etc (or) he is ready to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- P.M. to the present shop i.e., 800 sq.yds and requested to kindly extend the lease for (5) years. The Executive officer of the subject temple submitted report in the reference 8 th cited, stating that, earlier the Founder Family of the subject temple issued lease deed dt.24.11.1980, during the tenure of Sri Raj Kumar Bharatlal (Founder Family Member), the premises bearing municipal no.19-4-367 admeasuring 3433 Sq.Yds., was leased out to Sri Sitaram Heda, the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- for a period of 5 years upto 1985. Subsequently, in the year 2010 the rent was enhanced to Rs.6,000/- after the reins of the administration was taken over by the Department from Sri Raj Kumar Bharatlal, Member of the Founder and an Executive Officer was appointed to manage the day to day affairs of the temple. The rent was enhanced by the then Executive Officer from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000 upto 2015 and the rent was again enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and at present the occupant is paying Rs.25,000/- P.M. till 30.06.2021. The lease holder Sri Sitaram Heda was expired on 10.12.2020 and Sri Brij Gopal Heda, S/o Late Sri Sri Sitaram Heda is enjoying the property and paying the rent of Rs.25,000/- P.M. to the subject temple upto 30.06.2021 and also stated that the request made by the petitioner i.e., Sri Brij Gopal Heda for extension of lease for a further period of (5) years may not be considered since there are no lease approval orders in favour of the present occupant i.e., Sri Brij Gopal Heda, which is against the rules. In view of the above, in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.4572 of 2020 the matter has been examined with reference to Act and Rules and the request of Sri brij Gopal Heda for extension of lease premises bearing municipal no.19- 4-367 belonging to Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Templ,e Kishanbagh, Hyderabad for a further period of (05) years is hereby rejected, as the earlier lease was approved in favour of Sri Sitharam Heda who is the father of present petitioner and died on 10.12.2020.” 10. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as the Executive Officer of the Temple attended the enquiry before the 2 nd respondent, and the petitioner made a request for extension of lease for a further period of five years offering to pay enhanced rent, however, the request of the petitioner for extension of lease was rejected as the lease in question was in favour of petitioner’s father, which goes to show that there was no lease in the name of the petitioner except that the petitioner has been continuing in the subject premises on the earlier lease granted in favour of his father, which lease has admittedly expired. Therefore, in the absence of any lease either expired, or subsisting, specifically in favour of the petitioner herein, the action of 2 nd respondent in neither rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of lease, nor taking steps for eviction of petitioner from the subject premises, can be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The 2 nd respondent-Commissioner passed the Order rejecting the petitioner’s request in the year 2021. We are now in 2025. The petitioner, being a party to the proceedings before the 2nd respondent and having knowledge of rejection of his request by the competent authority, cannot squat over the Endowment Land or claim equities under the Endowments Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have grievance on the alleged eviction steps being taken by respondent authorities in respect of the subject property. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.