Dismissed

Bingi Yellamma and 4 Others v. the Asst. Commissioner Endowments and Another

Telangana HC18 Nov 2023CMA/395/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by tenants against an eviction order passed by the Endowments Tribunal. The court held that the tenants failed to comply with a prior High Court order to invoke Section 87 of the Endowments Act, rendering the Tribunal's eviction order valid despite disputes regarding property ownership.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the appellate court affirmed the direction to the appellants/tenants to vacate the property within one month.

Bingi Yellamma and 4 Others Vs the Asst. Commissioner… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ; ATHYDERABAD

¶3

SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL No 395 0F 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 84(2) of the Endowments Act against the judgment dated 31-03-2011 passed in O.A.No.227 of 2010(Old No.33 of 2005 of D.C, Hyderabad) on the file of the A.P. EndoMnents Tribunal at Hyderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bingi Yellamma, W/o. Iate Ranganna since died by L.Rs

¶10

Bingi Bajaranna, S/o. Ranganna, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Budamarsu (v) Waddepally(M)

¶11

Bingi Tippanna, S/o. Rangana, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Budamarsu (V), Waddepally(M)

¶12

Nagamma W/o. Gidaiah, Aged about 42 years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Budamarsu (V) Waddepally(M)

¶13

Giddamma Wo. Kishtanna, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mallemdoddi (V) Maldakal (M) Mahaboobnagar Disrict.

¶14

...AppELLANTS

¶15

AND

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar.

¶17

Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple Budamarsu (V) Waddepatty (M), Mahaboobnagar District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

CMAMP. NO: 784 OF 201'l

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the order dt. 31-03-201 1 made in OA No. 227 of 201O on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad (Old No. 33 of 2005 of D.C. Hyderabad) pending the above appeal in the interest ofjustice.

¶21

CMAMP. NO: 1340 OF 2014

¶22

Between

¶23

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar

¶24

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶25

AND

¶26

Bingi Yellamma, W/o. late Ranganna since died by L.Rs 2. Bingi Bajaranna, S/o. Ranganna, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Budamarsu (v) Waddepally(M)

¶27

Bingi Tippanna, S/o. Rangana, Aged about 3g years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o_ Budamarsu (V), Waddepatly(M)

¶28

Nagamma Wo. Gidaiah, Aged about 42 years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Budamarsu (V) Waddepally(M)

¶29

Giddamma W/o. Kishtanna, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mallemdoddi (V) Maldakal (M) Mahaboobnagar Disrict.

¶30

... RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

¶31

Sri Anjaneya Swamy Tempte Budamarsu (V) Waddepaily (M), Mahaboobnagar District.

¶32

(R6 not necessary party to lhis petition)

¶33

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶34

Petition under section^'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt. 2810412011 granted in cMA.Mp.no. 794 0l 2011 in cMA.No. 395 of 2011 and to dismiss the cMA.no. 395 of 201 1 as it is devoid of merits.

¶35

CMAM P. NO:973 OF 2014

¶36

Petition under Section 1 s l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the €ffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the auction notice isiued by the second respondent dated 22 -6-2O 1 4.

¶37

Counsel for the Appettants: SRI M. N. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.p. FOR ARBITRATION

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SUOARSHAN REDDY DUDDUGUNTA

¶40

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶41

¶42

THE HOilOURABLE SMT. JUSTI^{CE M.G.PRTYADARSINI}

¶43

Civil Miscellane ous Appeal No.395 OF^2O11

¶44

JUDGMENT:

¶45

Aggrieved by the Judgment^{(Award) dated 31.O3.201 I in} O.A.No.227 of 201O^(OId No.33^{of 2005 of D.C.Hyd.) (hereinafter} wiil be referred as 'impugned award)^{passed by the learnedA.P.} Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad^{(hereinafterwill be referred} as'the Tribunall, the respondents/ opposite^{parties has hledthe} present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶46

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter,^{the parties will} be referred as per their array^{before the learned Tribunal}

¶47

The brief facts of the case are tltat as^under: a) The applicant No. 1 i.e., the Assistant^{Commissioner,} Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar^{has forwarded the} proposals submitted by applicant No. f i.e., Sri Anjaneya^Swamy Temple, Budamarsu Village,^{WeddepallyMandal,} Mahaboobnagar District represented by^{its ExecutiveOffrcer} under Section 83 of the^{A.P.Charitableand HinduReligious} Institutions and Endowments Act^{(hereinafter will be referredas} 'the ActJ for eviction of the^{respondents from the petition} schedule property i.e., Ac.13.25^cents in^{Sy.No.79 of} Budamarsu Village, Waddepaliy Mandal,^{Mahaboobnagar}

)

MGP,.,I cMA 395_201t

District belonging to applicant No.2. It is alleged in the said proposals that the respondents, who are the tenants, after expiry ol lease period, have been continuing in the propert5r unauthorisedly without any valid lease extension since long time and without approval orders of the competent authorit5r. The respondents were not even regular in paying amounts towards damages for use and occupation and also failed to vacate the property despite issuing notices that they feil in arrears towards darnages for use and occupation and that the schedule property fetch huge amount i[ leased out as per rules in public auction. The application submitted by the applicant No. I was taken on file and notice under Section 83 (2) of the Act was issued to the respondents to put forth their defence.

¶52

b) The respondents Illed counter denying the averments of the application Smt. Bingi Yellam ma in obedience to this Court's orders dated 09.O7.1992 in W.P.No.11549 of 1988, had invoked the provisions under Section 87 of the Act by filing a petition before the Deputy Commissioner within stipulated time as per Clause Nos.l and 2 and in furtherance of clause 3 of the order, she paid a sum of Rs.2,0O0/- through Bank. However, the petitioners ignoring all the aforesaid obligations merely at the best of Smt. Leelavathamma without ascertaining as to

ffiy?t:t::t aft

MCP,J cMA-395 201^t

/\ 1i

whether she is Archaka^{or not, filed the presentO'A'No'33 of} 2005 before the Court^{saying that the respondents as tenants} and not paying rents.^{The petitionersdid not furnishthe} extractfromthebookofendowmentsduetononavailabilityof any entry with^{them in respectof the above land and also about} the Archakatwam of^{subject temple infavour ofSmt'} Leelavathamma.

¶58

It is further contended^{that thegrandmother of} c) respondent^{Nos.2 to 5 i.e., Smt.BingiEedammapurchasedthe} said land from^{Venakta Seshaiah under documentdated} 21.03.1952 and since^{then Smt. Bingi Eedamma and her} daughter i.e.,^{Smt. Yellammaand thereafter respondentNos'2} to 5 are in^{possessionand enjoymentof the said land' The} entriesfromtheextractofProtectedTenancyRegisteroflrcially prepared by the Revenue^{Department.in the year 1951 reveals} that Krishnamacharyulu^{is the Inamdar and whereas Bingi} Thimma is the^{protectedTenant. The entries in Sethwar 1348} Fasli or equivalent^{to 1939 A'D'revealsthe name of Poojari} Krishnamachar5rulu^{as a Khatedar/ Inamdar' The extract of} Inam Register^{1360 Fasli or equivalent to 1939 AD relied upon} by the petitioners^{havingfiled before the DistrictRevenue} Ofhcer, Mahaboobnagar^{in Case No' Al/3/ROR/1985 shows}

¶59

MGP,J cMA 395 201I

¶60

¶61

the Khatedar's name against Sy.No.79 at S.No.39, as poojari Krishnamacharya. The entries of Khasara pahani at column No.S shows Poojari Vani Chenu and Maddur Eedamma,s (grandmother of respondent Nos.2 to S) name was incorporated as an occupant, which is a conclusive proof that the land is not temple land. In Pahani/Adangals, the name of Krishnamachary as Poojari of Anjaneya Swamy is written indicates as it is treated as Chirunama, but the Temple,s name is not recorded in Pahan i / Ada nga l.

¶62

d) As there was no entry of Temple,s name in Revenue records and Endowment Records, Smt. Leelavathamma, who was not amicable to the family of the respondents and their ancestors, has applied to the District Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar vide Lr. No.B1l23O9/84, dated 16. I2.Olgg4 under the repealed provision of Section 15 of the Record of Rights Regulation 1357 Fasli for the correction of entries by removal of name of Smt. Maddur Edamma from column No.13 of Khasra Pahani in 19S4-SS and to insert by way of substitution of the name of "Anjaneya Swamy Temple) in the patta column and correct the same in the interest of Temple. The District Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar disposed of the said petition of Smt. Leelavarhamma in Case No.Al/3/ROR/g5

MGP,J cMA 395 2011

Y .) i,

by order dated 21.O5. 1986. It is the^{root casefor invoking the} litigation by Leelavathamma that the Court has^{no jurisdiction} to resume the Inam land to original inamdar and the case does not attract the provisions of A.P.^(T.A.) ROR in Regulations, 1358 Fasli and remanded to the Sub-Collector, Gadwal^for taking action under Section 74 of the Act in File^{No. 812697} 186 dated 11.O7.1986. The Sub Collector has^{issued directionsto} the Mandal Revenue Officer, Waddepally to resume the^said land in Sy.No.79 to the Government custody.

¶67

e) The appeal preferred against the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar in Case No.KB6/6453/86^{was disposedof on} 21.O2.1988 in W.P.No.8077 of 1988 and^subsequently W.P.No. 11549 of 1988. The respondents^{have compliedwith} the orders in W.P.No.1 1549 of^{1988 and for no faulton the part} of the Respondents, the claim^{has been initiatedon the flimsy} allegations by the petitioners on the^pretext that^{the Deputy} Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad^has informed through Lr.No.L.Dis.B2 / 7675 199, dated^{20.1 1.1999} that Bingi Yellamma has not hled^{any O.A. beforethe Deputy} Commissioner in this matter.^{The petitionhledby the Assistant} Commissioner, Endowments^{Department,Mahaboobnagaras} many as l3 years after^{the disposalof W.P.No. 11549 of 1988 is}

MGP,.,I cMA 395 2011

neither tenable nor warranted in the eye of law and it is fit to be dismissed in limini

¶72

f) During the course of enquiry, on the behalf of the applicants, Smt lrelavathi was examined as pW 1 and got marked EXs.A1 to A5. On the other hand, on behalf of respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Bl to B25 were got marked. After considering all the aspects, the learned Tribunal has allowed the application by directing the respondents to vacate and hand over the schedule premises within one month by written intimation to the petitioners or else to vacate the respondents or anybody claiming through them with the help of police aid. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶73

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶74

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Tribunal erred to have proceeded on the erroneous presumption that the mother of the respondents has not filed any application under Section g7 of the Act and has not complied with the orders of the High Court in W.P.No. 11549 of 1988 dated OT.OZ.1gg2. As seen from the record, aggrieved by the orders d,aLed 24.O2.19gg passed bv the

MGP,J cMA 395_201¹

District Revenue Ofhcer, Mahabubnagar^{confirmingthe order} dated I 1.07.1986 passed by the^{RevenueDivisional Officer,} Gadwal, the appellant No. 1 i.e.,^{Bingi Yellammahas filed} W.P.No. 11549 of 1988, wherein this^{Court advised the} petitioner to invoke the provisions contained^{under Section87} of the Act within one month from^{the date of orderand also} ordered that the petitioner shall^{not be disturbedfromthe} possession of the land in question subject to deposit^of Rs.2,000/- before the Assistant^{CommissionerEndowments,} Mahabubnagar. The learned Tribunal^{in the impugnedorder} observed that the^{petitioner failed to complywith the orders of} this Court in W.P.No.¹ 1549 of 1988.^{In order to establishthat} the petitioner has complied with the^{orders of this Courtin} W.P.No. 1 1549 of 1988, the^{claimantsrelied upon Exs.Bland} 82. Ex.B I is the copy of application^{alleged to have been filed} under Section 87 of the^{Act and Ex.B2is th€ copyof chequefor} Rs.2,OO0/-.

¶79

It is further contention of^{the claimants that until and} unless claim under Section 87 of^{the Act is determined,the} proceedings under Section 83 of^{the Act are not maintainable'} However, the learned Tribunal^{rejectedExs.Bl and 82 holding} that they are self - serving^{and has been fabricated for the}

¶80

¶81

MGP,.' cMA 39s 20I I

¶82

purpose of defending the application. As seen from the copy of Ex.Bl, there is no signature of the petitioner on each and every paper and there is no evidence to show that proper court fee was paid for iiling such petition before the Assistant Commissioner. If at all the claimant has filed petition under Section 87 of the Act, certainly she could have pursued the same and initiated necessary steps thereafter. Except filing the copy of petition, the claimants have not filed any material to establish that the claimants have complied with the orders of this Court in W.p.No. 11549 of 19g8. Furthermore, this Court has directcd the Deputy Commissioner in W.p.No.11S49 of l98g to adjudicate the petition frled by the petitioner after affording reasonable opportunit5r within six months thereof. If at all the petitioner has filed petition under section g7 of the Act and the Deputy Commissioner failed to adjudicate the dispute within six months as per the directions of this Court, certainly the claimants were at liberty to move a contempt application against the Deputy Commissioner for not complying with the orders of this Court. It is not the case of the claimants that in spite of their regular persuasion, the learned Commissioner failed to adjudicate the said application till date. Thus, any amount of suspicion arises with regard to compliance of the orders of this Court by the claimants. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner,

MGP,J cMA-395_201 I

Endowments Department, Hyderabad has informed through Lr.No.L.Dis.B2l7675l99, dated 20.11.1999 that Bingi Yellamma has not filed any O.A. before the Deputy Commissioner in this matter.

¶87

In the order dated 09.07.1992 it W.P.No.11549 of 1988 this Court has also observed that if the petitioner fails to file the petilion within the stipulated time, the order will cease to have effect and respondents are at libert5r to enforce the impugned orders. Since the claimants have not complied with the orders in W.P.No. 11549 of 1988, the respondents therein were at liberty to enforce the orders dated 24.02.1988 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar confirming the order dated 1 l.O7 .1986 passed by the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Gadwal.

¶88

It is contended by the claimantS that entire proceedings have been initiated at the instance of one Leelavathamma and is purely a personal litigation and the applicant No.1 ought not to have given a helping hand to the said Leelavathamma by filing the O.A. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Leelavathamma is also claiming her rights over the subject property and in pursuance of the same she has also filed O.S.No.2O of 2001 to declare the title in respect of subject property on the name of Sri Anjaneya

¶89

¶90

MG P..-I cMA 395 20tl

¶91

Swamy Deity, Budamarsu Village but the same was dismissed vide Judgment, dated i9.09.2OO3, wherein Smt. Leelavathamma was examined as PW1. Smt. trelavathamma as PWl deposed that defendant No. 1 therein i.e., Bingi yellamma failed to comply with the orders of the High court. pW I admitted in her cross examination that her grandsons along with her were performing poojas and that though defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit properties, she is not paying any amount either to PWI or to Endowment Department. pwl also admitted that suit land belongs to temple only; only Endowment Department is entitled for possession of the suit properly and plaintiff is entitled for lease amount for maintenance of the temple. Thus, it is clear that Smt. Leelavathamma is agitating her rights with regard to lease amount to maintain the temple. It is not the case of the claimants that Smt. kelavathamma is not the Archaka of the said temple. Hence, it cannot be said that it is a personal litigation of Smt. lrelavathamm, more particularly, when she is claiming lease amount for the maintenance of the temple.

¶92

9 . It is further contended by the claimants that there are absolutely no records whatsoever to establish that the land belongs to the temple and that the land is purely a private land

MGP,J cMA_395 201 I

of the respondents having purchased by their mother from the Inamdar way back in the year 1952 and ever since they are in possession of the proper[r and at no point of time nor anywhere in the record, which have mentioned that the land belongs to the temple. As seen from the judgment in O.S.No.2O of 2001 the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal observed that Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple is the owner of the subject property; defendant is in possession without paying any lease either to temple or to Archakatvam; it is the duty of the Endowment Department to take action against the defendant No.1 for taking possession of the land. ln support of their contentions, the claimants got examined RW2, who deposed that the subject property is the private land of the poojari and not temple land. As seen from the impugned judgment, RW2 gone to the extent of deposing that there is no Anjaneya Swamy Temple in the past or at present and that he worked as Mali Patel of the Village Budamarsu only for the period 1972-78. Thus, it is evident that RW2 is not aware of the facts of the case. Though RWI was examined on behalf of the claimants, he went to the extent of deposing that the subject property is their own private dry land, which is quite contrary to the version of the claimants in the pleadings. However, RWI again admitted that the documents they placed reliance show the land referred in the revenue

¶97

¶98

MGP,J CMA 395 2OI I

¶99

records as Poojarivari Chenu_ RWl further admitted that the subject land belongs to poojari Krishnamachari and under him his father's brother Bingi Thimmanna was tenant or Kouldar and not a protected tenant even. Hence, it is clear that the claimants have improved their version in the evidence when compared to their pleadings. If at all the grandmother of the claimants has purchased the land in the year 1952, then what made RWI to depose that his father,s brother Bingi Thimmanna was tenant or Kouldar of the land belonging to poojari Krishnamachari. The claimants in Ex.Bl claiming that their grandmother i.e., Smt.Bingi Eedamma purchased the subject property from Venakta Seshaiah under document dated 21.03.1952; since Krishnamacha4rulu died issues less, his brother Venkata Seshsaiah sold away the land to Smt. Bingi Eedamma in the year 1952. On the other hand, in the very same Ex.B1 the claimants are again contending that Smt. Bingi Eedamma was in occupation of the subject land since times immemorial and the same was devolved to her from her ancestors. The claimants cannot approbate and reprobate on the same aspect in two different ways. Thus, it is clear that the claimants have approached the Court with unclean hands.

¶100

MGP,J cMA_395_201l

¶101

¶102

1O. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the^revenue authorities had also issued^{pattedar passbooks} in favour of^the mother of the respondents and it should have established that it is purely a private land and not a tempie land. It is contended that even as per the version of claimants the entries of Khasara Pahani at column No.S shows Poojari Vani Chenu and Maddur Eedamma's (grandmother of respondent Nos.2 to 5) name^was incorporated as an occupant, which is a conclusive^proof that the land is not temple land. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records do not conclusively confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title and they only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. Though the claimants are claiming that their^{grandmotherpurchased} subject lands in the name of her daughter through registered sale deed dated 21.03.1952, there is no material^produced by the claimants to substantiate the same. Even as^per the above said Khasara Pahani at column No.S the name of Maddur Eedamma's name was shown as occupant apart from mentioning Poojari Vani Chenu. As stated supra, the entries in the revenue records do not conclusively confer title to a^properEy and those entries are only meant for the^purpose of collecting revenue in respect of the land in question. Thus, based on mere

¶103

¶104

MGP,J cMA 395 201 I

¶105

entries in the revenue records, title of the subject land cannot be decided.

¶106

1 1. It is lurLher conLended by the claimants that the learned Tribunal has made much of the fact that the mother the respondents namely Yellamma did not choose to contest the suit filed Lry kelavathamma. Admittedly, Smt. Bingi yellamma has not contested the suit, though she was shown as defendant No.1 in the said suit. Though the suit hled by Smt. kelavathamma was dismissed, the learned Judge has made certain observations with regard to wrongful possession of the subject property u'ith Smt. Bingi Yeilamma. It is the contention of the claimants that the evidence in a suit, which is dismissed cannot be a basis for allowing the application filed under Section 83 of the Act and in support of the same, the learned counsel for the claimants/appellant relied upon a decis.ion of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Shriram v. Suresh Kumar (deadf^l, wherein it was observed that against adverse finding, if any, has been recorded against the defendants, no appeal lies under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code against such hnding, more particularly, when the said suit was dismissed hnally. On one hand, the claimants are contending that the

¶107

'^{2020 Law Suit (Chh)314}

¶108

MGP,.'I cMA 395 201 I

hndings in the suit are^{bindingthe parties tothe suit} proceedings and thereby the^{proceedingsunder Section 83 of} the Act are not^{maintainable and on the other hand again} contending that the^{evidence in a suit, which is dismissed} cannot be a basis for allowing^{the application filed under} Section 83 of the Act. It is^{pertinent to note that the learned} Tribunal has not^{allowed the applicationfor eviction of the} claimants from the^{subject propertysolely based on the hndings} in O.S.No.2O of 2OO1 and^{in fact, while allowing the said} application, the learned^{Tribunalhas consideredvarious} aspects such as the evidence^{of PWI and admissionsof RWs1} and 2 in OA claim, documentary^{evidence in the formof Exs'Al} to A5 and Exs.B 1 to^{B25 and arrived to a conclusion' It is} pertinent to note that the Smt'^{lrelavathamma, who is PWl in} O.S.No.20 of 2001,^{was also examined as PW1 in O'A'No'227 of} 201O. Thus, it is clear^{that the learned Tribunal has considered} the evidence of Smt.^{Leelavathamma,who was examinedas} PWl in O.A.No.227 of^{2010, which is subject case inthis} matter

¶114

Even lor the sake^{of arguments, if at all the above} contentions of the^{claimantsthat the temple land is a private} property is considered as^{true and correct, they are not entitled}

¶115

¶116

MGP,J cMA 395_201 I

¶117

to claim any right over subject property rn view of non compliance of the orders of this Court in W.p.No.l l549 of 19gg.

¶118

In view of the above discussion, viewed from any angle, .this^{Court is of the considered opinion that there is no} inhrmity or illegaliry in the impugned judgment passed by the rearned Tribunal and thereby, interference of this court with the impugned judgment is unwarranted. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and Iiable to be dismissed.

¶119

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The appellants/respondents are directed to vacate and hand over the schedule premises to the respondents/applicants within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, lailing which, the respondents/applicants are directed to proceed in accordance with law

¶120

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shali stand

¶121

closed.

¶122

SD/-K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOTNT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// d

¶123

SECTION OFFICER

¶124

To,

¶125

1 The A.P. Endowments^{Tribunal at Hyderabad'} 2 One CC to^{Sri M. N. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate IOPUC]} 3 iwo CCs to^{the G-P. ForArbitration, High Court for theStateof} TelanganaIOUT]

¶126