Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) — Ss. 83, 84(2), 91(i) (as amended by Act 36 of 2023 w.e.f. 26-06-2023) — A.P. Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2010, r. 26(b)(v) — Maintainability — Remedy against dismissal of S.83 O.A. — Held: Against an order dismissing an application under S.83 (encroachment proceedings) no appeal lies under S.84(2) at the instance of the institution. S.84(2) appeal is confined to a person aggrieved who disputes the title of the religious/charitable institution and faces eviction; it is not available to the institution. The proper remedy for an unsuccessful institution is a revision under S.91(i) read with Rule 26(b)(v) (revision to the High Court within the prescribed period). Consequently, CMAs filed by institutions under S.84(2) are not maintainable. Liberty reserved to file revisions; S.14 Limitation Act benefit available for the period bona fide spent in these CMAs. Practice & Procedure — Registry Directions — Registry directed that future challenges by institutions against dismissal orders under S.83(4)/(5) shall be entertained only as revisions under S.91(i) r/w Rule 26, not as appeals under S.84(2).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS Nos. 496, 497, 498, 499, 506, 507, 508, 509 of 2024 and 319 of 2025 (Common Order)

Between

• Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Gudivada & Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Gudivada … Appellants / Institutions (in CMAs 496, 497, 498, 499, 506, 507, 508, 509 of 2024)

• Sri Chudukudutamma Charities, Eluru … Appellant / Institution (in CMA 319 of 2025)

And

• Private respondents (alleged encroachers/claimants) & Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department … Respondents

Appearances: For Appellants — M/s. Pulipati Radhika; For Private Respondents — Sri V.V.N. Narasimham / Sri A. Radhakrishna / Sri Alapati Vivekananda (as applicable); For Assistant Commissioner — GP for Appeals.

HEADNOTES

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) — Ss. 83, 84(2), 91(i) (as amended by Act 36 of 2023 w.e.f. 26-06-2023) — A.P. Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2010, r. 26(b)(v) — Maintainability — Remedy against dismissal of S.83 O.A. —
Held: Against an order dismissing an application under S.83 (encroachment proceedings) no appeal lies under S.84(2) at the instance of the institution. S.84(2) appeal is confined to a person aggrieved who disputes the title of the religious/charitable institution and faces eviction; it is not available to the institution. The proper remedy for an unsuccessful institution is a revision under S.91(i) read with Rule 26(b)(v) (revision to the High Court within the prescribed period). Consequently, CMAs filed by institutions under S.84(2) are not maintainable. Liberty reserved to file revisions; S.14 Limitation Act benefit available for the period bona fide spent in these CMAs.

Practice & Procedure — Registry Directions —
Registry directed that future challenges by institutions against dismissal orders under S.83(4)/(5) shall be entertained only as revisions under S.91(i) r/w Rule 26, not as appeals under S.84(2).

Precedents referred:

• W.P. No. 7577 of 2008 & batch (DB, 24-11-2022) — appeal under S.84(2) lies only when appellant disputes title; pure encroacher has no such right.

• Executive Officer, Group Temples v. Sri Sakhiya Matt, (2010) 8 APCK 27 — right of appeal is statutory; where no appeal, revision lies under S.91.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The appellant-institutions (Gudivada Temples; Chudukudutamma Charities) initiated S.83 proceedings before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, seeking eviction of alleged encroachers and damages for unauthorised use/occupation in various O.As. (2017 / 2010).

2. The Tribunal dismissed the O.As. by orders dated 31-07-2023 (and 27-01-2025 for CMA 319/2025).

3. The institutions filed the present CMAs under S.84(2) (with delay condonation petitions) challenging the dismissal orders.

4. Private respondents and the Assistant Commissioner objected to maintainability, contending that S.84(2) permits appeal only to persons disputing title and facing eviction, not to institutions.

ISSUE

Whether Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under S.84(2) are maintainable at the instance of institutions challenging dismissal of S.83 O.As.; if not, what is the proper remedy?

COURT’S REASONING

• Statutory Scheme (pre & post-amendment):

  • S.83 provides the encroachment mechanism before the Tribunal and culminates in an order under sub-ss. (4)/(5).

  • S.84(2) creates a narrow appeal to the High Court for a person aggrieved to establish that the institution has no title — i.e., a remedy for the occupant, not for the institution.

  • S.91(i) vests revisional jurisdiction in this Court “where no appeal lies,” which fits an institution’s challenge to a dismissal under S.83.

  • Rule 26(b)(v) of the 2010 Rules aligns with this: order under S.83 is final unless a revision is filed in the High Court within the prescribed time.

  • Act 36 of 2023 (26-06-2023) recasts Chapter on encroachment (S.83 substituted; Ss.84-86 omitted) and inserts S.91(v)—the architecture reinforces revision as the supervisory remedy.

• Binding Guidance:

  • The Division Bench in W.P. 7577/2008 & batch held that S.84(2) appeals are maintainable only where the appellant disputes temple title; pure encroachers cannot invoke S.84(2).

  • In Sri Sakhiya Matt (2010), this Court underscored that appeal rights are purely statutory; otherwise S.91 revision lies.

• Application to present CMAs:

  • Here, the appellants are institutions, assailing dismissal of their S.83 O.As.—no S.84(2) appeal is provided to them.

  • The proper course is a revision under S.91(i) r/w Rule 26(b)(v).

  • Given the bona fide pursuit of an incorrect remedy, time spent in these CMAs can be excluded under S.14, Limitation Act when filing revisions.

OPERATIVE CONCLUSION

“These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, preferred by institutions under Section 84(2) against dismissal of Section 83 proceedings, are not maintainable. The proper remedy is a revision under Section 91(i) read with Rule 26 of the 2010 Rules.”

Result:

• All CMAs (Nos. 496, 497, 498, 499, 506, 507, 508, 509 of 2024 and 319 of 2025) — Dismissed as not maintainable.

• Liberty to the appellants to file revisions under S.91(i) r/w Rule 26.

• Appellants entitled to exclusion of time under S.14 Limitation Act for the period spent prosecuting these CMAs.

• No order as to costs.

• All pending IAs (including delay condonation & stay) — Closed.

Registry Direction: Henceforth, institution-filed challenges to dismissal orders under S.83 shall be registered only as revisions under S.91(i) r/w Rule 26, not as C.M.As. under S.84(2).

ANALYSIS 

This common order provides clear procedural housekeeping for Endowments litigation in A.P.:

• It draws a bright line between S.84(2) appeals (a defensive remedy for occupants disputing title) and the institution’s supervisory remedy via S.91 revision.

• It harmonizes the statute, rules, and recent amendments (Act 36/2023) with the Division Bench view, removing the recurring confusion about forum/label.

• The grant of S.14 Limitation protection is practical and fair, preventing prejudice from a technical misstep while channeling future filings correctly.

• The Registry direction will reduce misfilings and speed up adjudication in this domain.

— CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.
Date: 04-08-2025