APHC010121042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: P Devasena The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: Challenging the action of the respondent Nos.2 & 5 subject property of the petitioner under prohibited category in terms of Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition is filed. 2. It is contended by the petitioner registered sale deed bearing document no.447 of 1976 subject property from one Ramachandra Rao IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6749/2025 AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: Challenging the action of the respondent Nos.2 & 5 subject property of the petitioner under prohibited category in terms of Section (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition is filed. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner’s brother vide bearing document no.447 of 1976 had purchased the subject property from one Ramachandra Rao. He contends that as many as IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Challenging the action of the respondent Nos.2 & 5 in enlisting the subject property of the petitioner under prohibited category in terms of Section (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition is filed. that the petitioner’s brother vide had purchased the . He contends that as many as 2 500 sale transactions took place over a century and more than 300 families are residing at the subject area, however the property is enlisted under the category of prohibited properties from registration U/s.22A(1)( C ) of the Act. Seeking deletion of the property from the said list the petitioner’s brother was pursuing with the respondents and has filed writ petition in W.P.No.33094 of 2018, he was however unsuccessful and he died in 2023. The petitioner thereafter started making representation to the authorities one such was on 28-02-2025 and no action on the said representations has been taken by the respondents. Thus filed the instant writ petition. 3. The Full Bench of the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri Raja Gopala Chary & Ors1, referring to Circular Memo dated 14-09-2007, observed as follows: “(3) S.22-A(1) (c): For the purposes of Section 22-A (1)(c) the lists of properties owned by religious and charitable endowments falling under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or under the Wakf Act, 1985 to the Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property and also the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R&S) concerned and Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in Annexure-III. The list must be signed by Commissioner, Endowments or Secretary, Wakf Board, as the case may be. All authorizations by the persons statutorily empowered to alienate these properties shall be accompanied by notification issued by the concerned Administrative Department in Government and the signature attested by the concerned Head of the Department. Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who 1 (2016) 1 ALT 550 (FB) 3 in turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action.” The Full Bench further observed as follows: “106. In our considered view, the guidelines, which are extracted supra, provide adequate measures to rule out any mischief and arbitrariness in furnishing lists of 2 properties prohibited under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act to the Registering officers concerned; and, under these guidelines, the officers who are enjoined with the duty of identifying the properties and furnishing the lists to the Registrars concerned are also identified and specified: Further, provisions are also made for deletions and modifications of the lists under various clauses (a) to (d) and also for reconciliation once in a quarter. Then directions are also issued to maintain Register of Refusals in a prescribed form. Therefore, the apprehension that there may be mischief or arbitrariness in furnishing lists of properties to the Registrars concerned is not well founded. Hence, we see no merit in the contention that the procedure for entering properties in the lists is irregular and arbitrary.” 4. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the considered view that it is appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner on 28.02.2025 within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 28.03.2025 MSI 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6749/2025 Date: 28.03.2025 MSI