ORDER
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 45(3) read with Section 78(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments for deletion of the subject lands from the list of properties registered as endowed to Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple in the Endowments Register of 1981 and to direct the second respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to withdraw the complaint lodged by him against the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the protected tenant in respect of the subject lands and that they are not endowed properties belonging to the said temple and that the same were erroneously recorded in the Endowments Register as endowed properties of the temple. The petitioner sought to place reliance on certain observations and findings recorded by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District in OS No. 193 of 1983 in support of his contentions. The said suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration of his title to the subject lands and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein which included the Board of Trustees of the temple and also the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments from interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment of the scheduled lands and to amend and correct the entries in the pahanis and revenue records by deleting the name of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Devalayam and to include his name as title holder and possessor of the suit lands. That suit was however dismissed by judgment and decree dated 19-4-1993. While dismissing the suit, the learned Subordinate Judge however made certain observations to the effect that the plaintiff i.e., the petitioner herein was the protected tenant in respect of the suit lands.
3. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding that the subject lands are properties which have been endowed to the temple and which have been duly included in the Register of Endowed Properties and that any findings recorded by the civil Court are not binding on him. He further held that the proper forum to decide any dispute as to the question whether any property is an endowment, if so, whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment is the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments as per Clause (C) sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 and any person aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner has a right of appeal to the District Court. Questioning the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner with the observations that the lends have been registered in the name of temple in the year 1981 and no steps have been taken by the petitioner to set aside the entries in the Register maintained under Section 38 of the repealed Act 17 of 1966 corresponding to Section 43 of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987 and that the present application has been filed by the petitioner-appellant before the Deputy Commissioner after the lapse of 15 years after the registration of the property in the name of the temple and the application is not maintainable. The learned District Judge also held that the question whether the petitioner is the protected tenant of the subject lands is beyond the scope of enquiry in an application of this nature and separate Tribunals have been constituted for grant of certificate under Section 38(E) of the Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Tenancy Act and no finding can be given on that question in an enquiry on an application of this nature. The learned District Judge further held that till me order registering the lands in the name of the temple is set aside, the question of deletion of entries does not arise.
4. I do not find any infrimity in the impugned orders. The whole case of the petitioner is based on his claim that he is the protected tenant in respect of the schedule lands. A Division Bench of this Court in Islamia Arabic College v. Balaram Singh, : 1997(4)ALT90 , to which I am a party held that the question whether a person is a protected tenant or not, is a matter to be decided exclusively by the Tribunals constituted under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 subject to revision by the High Court and the jurisdiction of the. civil Court to go into the said question is expressly barred under Section 99 of the said Act. It was further held therein that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the status of a person claiming to be the protected tenant even incidentally and consequently its decision is without jurisdiction and it does not therefore operate as res judicata. It therefore follows that the revision is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed- This will not however preclude the petitioner from agitating his rights as protected tenant before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
5. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.