JUDGMENT : Dhirai Singh Thakur, CJ. 1. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 22.05.2025, passed in W.P.No.13868 of 2025. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: A show cause notice dated 07.03.2025 followed by another notice, dated 01.05.2025, came to be issued against the petitioner - appellant herein requiring him to show cause as to why he be not evicted from the properties which were mentioned in the scheduled annexed to the said show cause notice. The schedule of properties mentioned a land measuring Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.261/1 and Ac.2.38 cents in Sy.No.261/2 measuring a total of Ac.3.88 cents falling in Tirupati Urban Mandal and District. The petitioner in the first round of litigation challenged the show cause notice, dated 07.03.2025 by way of W.P.No.6348 of 2025. The learned single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order, dated 12.03.2025, disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice with supporting documents which was then to be considered and appropriate orders passed within a period of three weeks therefrom. In the second round of litigation, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.9848 of 2025 in which the petitioner sought suspension of the proceedings pending before the 4th respondent initiated pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 07.03.2025, inter alia on the ground that he would not be in a position to furnish an effective reply in the absence of certain documents which are required to be obtained from the respondents. By virtue of an interim order, dated 08.05.2025, the learned single Judge granted liberty to the petitioner - appellant herein to approach the 4th respondent requesting supply of documents indicating the particulars and description of the said documents. It was also ordered that upon filing of such an application, the 4th respondent would pass appropriate orders on the said application. It appears that an application was filed by the petitioner on 09.05.2025 which came to be rejected on 15.05.2025. It is not out of place here to mention that in his application filed with the respondent, the petitioner had sought certain documents which, according to the 4th respondent, were not required to be furnished as according to the 4th respondent they were unrelated to the individual claim of the petitioner. It is not out of place here to mention that in his application filed with the respondent, the petitioner had sought certain documents which, according to the 4th respondent, were not required to be furnished as according to the 4th respondent they were unrelated to the individual claim of the petitioner. The authority also held that the burden of proving the right and title or lawful possession by way of documentary evidence rests only on the applicant. In the meantime, the authority appears to have passed a final order on 16.05.2025 on the proceedings initiated pursuant to the issuance of the show cause notice directing the eviction of the petitioner. The hearing on the proceedings is stated to have been held on 09.05.2025. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order challenged the same before a learned single Judge of this Court by way of W.P.No. 13868 of 2025 on the ground that no hearing at all had taken place on 09.05.2025 before the 4th respondent and the order impugned had been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also alleged that the case of the petitioner had been prejudiced on account of non furnishing of the documents which were sought for from the 4th respondent. The learned single Judge, however, disposed of the petition by virtue of judgment and order, dated 22.05.2025, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Endowments Tribunal by way of an appeal under Section 86(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which was the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and order, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, states that the learned single Judge ought to have exercised the writ jurisdiction inasmuch as this was a clear case of gross violation of principles of natural justice by the concerned authority - respondent and, therefore, availability of an alternative remedy was certainly no bar. Secondly, it was urged that even when the order passed by the 4th respondent purported to have been passed after hearing the counsel for the petitioner on 09.05.2025, no such hearing was held. 4. Secondly, it was urged that even when the order passed by the 4th respondent purported to have been passed after hearing the counsel for the petitioner on 09.05.2025, no such hearing was held. 4. On the issue of supply of documents pursuant to the interim direction passed by a single Bench of this Court vide order, dated 08.05.2025 learned Senior Counsel would submit that there was no basis for the respondent to come to a conclusion that the documents which were sought to be obtained by the appellant were in any manner irrelevant for setting up a case in defence to the allegation of encroachment raised by respondent No.4 in the show cause notice which culminated in the final order. 5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the application filed by the appellant had rightly been rejected inasmuch as the documents which ought to have been sought for by the petitioner ought to have been confined to those survey numbers in regard to which the petitioner was required to submit an explanation. It was stated that the survey numbers in question were only 261/1 and 261/2 in M.R Palli village in Tirupati District. 6. At this stage, it will be pertinent to reproduce the contents of the application which was filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent. “1. Documents evidencing the lands purportedly owned by Sri Bugga Mutt, including but not limited to: • Title deeds, revenue records, assignment records, and any other official documentation Indicating ownership or possession by the Mutt • Records maintained by the Endowments Department reflecting the landed properties under the management or ownership of Sri Bugga Mutt; • Any other documentary evidence relied upon by the Department or the Mutt to assert such ownership. 2. Details of the documents pertaining to the lands in Sy.No.261, 262 and 314 of MR Pain, TirupathI belonging to Sri Bugga Mutt and/or which belonged to Sri Bugga Mutt, including: • Proceedings evidencing Sub Division ofthe above survey numbers • Patta records, revenue entries, mutation records, or any other supporting land records reflecting the Mutt’s ownership or claims; 3. Please provide all the GOs issued by the Government through which Bugga Mutt was permitted to sell the lands. 4. There is reference to "Revenue Survey Records” in the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued byyou. Please provide the same. 5. Please provide all the GOs issued by the Government through which Bugga Mutt was permitted to sell the lands. 4. There is reference to "Revenue Survey Records” in the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued byyou. Please provide the same. 5. Through notices dated 28.03.2025 and 11.04.2025, you have notified about conduct of survey. There is also reference to the persons adjoining my boundary. Could you please provide the details of the said land owners? Were they issued the survey notices? 6. There are hundreds of houses In the vicinity of the Sy.nos. which are mentioned in the notice, which are constructed in the lands purportedly belonging to Bugga Mutt. Please mention whether the lands on which the houses are constructed are sold by Bugga Mutt and if not, what action has been initiated against them. 7. Did this esteemed authority Issue eviction notices to any of the land owners/possessors/encroachers? Ifyes, please provide the details.” 7. On the issue as to whether there was actually any hearing of the case by the 4th respondent on or after 09.05.2025, it is not out of place here to mention that to support and buttress the factum that there was no hearing conducted on 09.05.2025, an affidavit sworn by the counsel handling the case at Tirupati has been placed on record to that extent. Nonetheless, learned Advocate General, on instructions states that no hearing was conducted and therefore to that extent he has no objection that the petitioner would be heard again. 8. Now the only issue that remains is with regard to providing the documents to the petitioner. 9. We are of the opinion that the petitioner ought to be furnished documents pertaining to Sy.Nos.261/1 and 261/2 falling in M.R Palli Village in Tirupati. Learned Advocate General states that the documents shall be furnished to the appellant within one week from today, if the same are within the power and control of the authority. It is ordered accordingly. The petitioner would be at liberty to file his explanation within one week thereafter. The matter be heard afresh within four weeks thereafter. As a necessary consequence, the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the 4th respondent as also the judgment and order impugned are set aside. We also order that the hearing be conducted by any officer other than the one who had passed the order on 16.05.2025. The matter be heard afresh within four weeks thereafter. As a necessary consequence, the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the 4th respondent as also the judgment and order impugned are set aside. We also order that the hearing be conducted by any officer other than the one who had passed the order on 16.05.2025. The petitioner is also at liberty to file written submissions before the officer concerned. We make it clear that in case any order is passed which is adverse to f the interest of the appellant, the same shall not be acted upon for a period of three weeks with a view to enable the appellant to avail his remedies in law. 10. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.