ORDER : Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in including the land of the petitioners admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-09 gts in Sy.No.293 situated at Gopalpur Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District in the property register under Section 43 of the Provisions of the Telangana Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) in the name of the respondent No.3- Temple as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sections 45 and 43 of the Act and the Rules made there under and consequently set aside the proceedings in O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal filed by the respondent No.3 for eviction. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the grandfather of petitioners late Chandra Reddy @ Chandraiah was cultivated the agricultural lands and he was granted Protected Tenancy Certificate in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-31 gts in Sy.No.209 and Ac.6-25 gts in Sy.No.293 situated at Gopalpur Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District by the Tahsildar on 29.02.1952 under Sections 35 to 37 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The pattadar of the said lands was one Smt Saraswathi Bai. The name of the grandfather of petitioners was shown as cultivator in the pahani pathrikas prior to the year, 1950 and also in the pahani for the years 1953-54 and Khasra Pahani for the years 1954-55 onwards and the names of Gonnedu China Rajan and Lingam were shown as pattadars. After his death, the name of the father of petitioner Malla Reddy was shown as pattadar and possessor and subsequently, the names of the petitioners were shown as pattadars and possessors and they obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds bearing Patta Nos.338 and 339 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.24½ gts each total Ac.7-09 gts in Sy.No.293 situated at Gopalpur Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District and doing agriculture by raising standing crops Turmeric, Maze and Paddy in the said lands along with other lands. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the respondent No.2 and 3 and the District Collector. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the respondent No.2 and 3 and the District Collector. Karimnagar are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property, the petitioners filed O.S.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and during pendency of the instant writ petition, the said suit was decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2024 in their favour by declaring them as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and granted perpetual injunction. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that during pendency of suit in O.S.No.65 of 2007, the respondent No.3-Temple also filed O.A.No.141 of 2008 before the respondent No.1 and consequently transmitted to Endowments Tribunal for eviction of the petitioners from the suit schedule property by stating that the suit schedule property was entered in the property register of the Temple. He submits that as the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2007 was decreed in their favour, the question of eviction of petitioners from the suit schedule property does not arise and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings in O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgment; 1. The Executive Officer Vs. Central Silk Board , 2001 SCC OnLine AP 653 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-Temple basing on the counter submits that the Tahasildar Dharmapuri vide orders in Rc.No.B/195/2007 dated 11.05.2007 instructed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent No.3 and the Mandal Revenue Inspector also handed over possession of the said land on 12.05.2007 on paper, but failed to handover the physical possession. The petitioners have illegally occupied the suit schedule property of the respondent No.3 without any permission from the competent authority of the Endowments Department and continuing under illegal occupation without any permission of lease hold rights under Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987 and the petitioners are encroachers under Section 83 of the Act and to evict them from the land under Section 84 of the Act 30 of 1987. The District Registrar has registered the Gift Deed of Sri V. Sadasiva Rao and the same was submitted in the Court where the suit is pending. The District Registrar has registered the Gift Deed of Sri V. Sadasiva Rao and the same was submitted in the Court where the suit is pending. The petitioners are illegal occupants without having any lease hold rights as per Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987 and hence, the respondent No.3 filed O.A.No.141 of 2008 before the respondent No.1 and the same was transferred to the Endowments Tribunal. 8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the suit schedule property was donated to the respondent No.3-Temple by Sri G.V.Sadasiva Rao through Gift Deed dated 28.07.1983 and as such the question of sale of property to the grandfather of the petitioners does not arise and the alleged simple sale deed executed by Sri G.V.Sadasiva Rao in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners is forged one and the revenue records such as pahanies revealed that the lands are in the name of Sri G.V.Sadasiva Rao. He further submits that against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial dated 21.03.2024, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed A.S.No.38 of 2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Jagtial District at Jagtial and the same is pending and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in including their property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-09 gts in Sy.No.293 situated at Gopalpur Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District in the property register under Section 43 of the Act, 1987 in the name of the respondent No.3-Temple and also the proceedings for eviction of the petitioners by filing O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal in spite of pendency of suit for declaration in O.S.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial. 10. At the time of admission, this Court granted interim order on 06.10.2010 staying all further proceedings in O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal. 11. 10. At the time of admission, this Court granted interim order on 06.10.2010 staying all further proceedings in O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal. 11. During pendency of the instant writ petition, O.S.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial filed by the petitioners to declare them as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and also the District Collector, Karimnagar was decreed on 21.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed A.S.No.38 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Jagtial District at Jagtial and the same is pending without any interim orders. In view of the same, once the competent Civil Court has declared the title in favour of the petitioners and the said issue is pending before the Appellate Court, the question of continuing the proceedings before the Endowments Tribunal in O.A.No.141 of 2008 does not arise. 12. The contention of the respondents is that the Endowments Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain O.A.No.141 of 2008 and the Civil Court is barred in entertaining the dispute between the Temple and the private individuals. In fact, the Amendment Act 33 of 2007 came into force from 03.01.2008, whereas in the instant case, the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration of their title and injunction was in the year, 2007. In view of the same, the suit filed by the petitioners was entertained by the competent Civil Court and the respondents herein have contested the matter and after conducting trial, the Civil Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners herein. The respondents have to agitate their rights before the Appellate Court by raising all the contentions. In view of the same, inclusion of the subject property under Section 43 of the Act, 1987 in the property register and the proceedings in O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal, for eviction of the petitioners cannot be entertained. 13. The respondents have to agitate their rights before the Appellate Court by raising all the contentions. In view of the same, inclusion of the subject property under Section 43 of the Act, 1987 in the property register and the proceedings in O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal, for eviction of the petitioners cannot be entertained. 13. In view of disposal of O.S.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial dated 21.03.2024 and pendency of A.S.No.38 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Jagtial District at Jagtial filed by the respondent No.2 and 3, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the action of the respondent No.2 in inclusion of the subject land of the petitioners in the property register under Section 43 of the Act, 1987 and the consequential proceedings in O.A.No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal are also set aside. No order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.