IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI W RIT PETITION NOS: 15035 OF 2024 & OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 15035 OF 2024 Between: 1. V. Parameswara Reddy. S/o Late V Shankar Reddy Peddapadu (V), Kallur (M), Kurnool District. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Late V 3/1,Peddapadu(V),Kallur (M), Kurnool District. 3. V. Chandra Kaladhar Reddy, S/o Late V Shankar Reddy. H.No.7- 1- 304/A/2/A2, B.K.Guda, S.R.Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2. V. Shankar Reddy, H.No. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, (IDM). Minorities Welfare Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Secretariat, Velagapudi 3. The Inspector Auditor, Kurnool District. 4. The District Collector, Kurnool District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. 6. The Tahsildar, Kurnool Rural, Kurnool. 7. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, V-Square Building, KSR Park Road, Ward No. 2, Tadepalli, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522501 8. The Sub-Registrar, Kurnool Rural, Kurnool ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an order may or a writ, specifically one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the actions of the respondents in incorporating the in the list published under 22-A of the land belongs to the petitioners Registration Act, 1908 to an extent of Ac. 27.02 Cents in Survey No. 218 and 234 of Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal the inaction of the Respondent No. Kurnool District, and 2 in de-notifying the land without considering the order passed by the competent civil court in judgement Dt. 27.01.1970 passed in OS No 74 of 1967 on the file of Additional Sub ordinate Judge Court, Kurnool, and the inaction of the Respondent No.5 and 6 in not mutating the names of the petitioners without taking iinto consideration the order Dt. 12.12.2014 passed by the Respondent No.4 Illegal arbitrary and in conflict with the purport of section Registration Act, 1908 and i as 22A of the in contravention with the Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and rules framed there under and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 delete the to de-notify the land and to same from prohibited list and Respondent No.7, and also direct the communicate the same to the Respondent No.5 and 6 to mutate the names of the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 27.02 Cents in Survey No. 218 and 234 of Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool district taking into consideration the judgement Dt. 27.01.1970 passed in OS No 74 of ordinate Judge Court, Kurnool and aisp passed by the Respondent No.5. 1967 on the file of Additional Sub the order Dt. 12.12.2014 1A2J0M_0F2W4 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities published in the Prohibitory list under Section 1908 to an extent of Ac.27.02 Cents i Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mahdal, of the writ petition. to forthwith suspend the list 22A of the Registration Act; in survey No 218 and 234 of Kurnool District pending disposal lA NO: 2 OF 2n?4 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be 16.07.2024 passed by this of the main writ pleased to extend the Interim Order dated Hon'ble Court in WP No 15035 of 2024 pending disposal petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BUDDHARAJU POOJITHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASHA WAQF BOARD) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 7 & 8: GP FOR REGISTRATION & STAMPS (SC FOR WRIT PETITION NO: 11136 OF 207.5 Between: V Parameswara Reddy, S/o Late V Shankar (M), Kurnool District. Reddy, Peddapadu (V), Kallur ...PETITIONER AND Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (IDM) Minorities Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State \A/aqf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Inspector Auditor, Waqfs, Kurnool District 7 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent impugned Show Cause Notice No.2 in issuing the vide F. No dated 25.03.2025 06/Prot/KNL/2023 which was served upon the Petitioner on 26.04.2025, under Section 54(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them to evict from encroachment within 15 days over petitioners subject property admeasuring land 27.02 Cents situated in to an extent of Ac.. survey No 218 and 234 of Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District, inasmuch as the subject property is not a Waqf property, and the Waqf Board has already suffered No. 74 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Additional a decree in O.S-. Subordinate Judge; Kurnool, wherein the claim is against the Waqf Board and the order attains finaiity as arbitrary, illegai, and in ciear vioiation of the Petitioner's Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders passed in W.P. No. 15035 of 2024, dated 16.07.2024 and 08.01.2025 and consequently set-aside the Show Cause Notice dated 25.03.2025 vide F. No 06/Prot/KNL/2023. lA NO: 1 OF 90'?^ 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 the operation of the Show Cause Notice dated 25.03.2025 vide F. No 06/Prot/KNL/2023 pending disposal of the writ petition. :/ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASRA (SC FORWAQF BOARD) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER % APHC010300582024 % IN THE HIGH CpURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NOS: 15035/2024 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 11136/2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 15035/2024 Between; V. Parameswara Reddy and Others ...PETiTIONER{S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.BUDDHARAJU POOJITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 4.SHAIK KHAJA BASHA WRIT PETITION NO; 11136/2025 ...RESPONDENT{S) Between: V Parameswara Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) . Page 2 of 14 Counsel for the Petitioner: .1.MALLAVELLI NAGA SA( LALITH Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 2.SHAIK KHAJA SASHA The Court made the following: KUMAR C^OIVIIVION ORHFP W.P.No.15035 of2024 is filed to declare the incorporating the petitioners’ land action of the respondents No218anrldaa f,« of Ac.27.02 cents in . 8 and 234 of Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool list published under Section 22-A of the Registration inaction of respondent No.2 in de-notifying the said land and decree dated 27.01.1970 learned Additional Suh-ord.inatp respondents 5 and 6 i in survey Distifct, in Act, 1908; the despite the judgment on the file of passed in O.S.No.74 of 1967 ye Kurnool and the inaction of petitioners without taking 12.12.2014 passed by respondent '-4 in mutating the names of the into consideration, the order dated No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, etc. 2. W.P.No.11136 of 2025 i issued by respondent No.2 vide under Section 54(1) of the Wakf submit reply as to why they should 3. Since the subject property disposed of by this IS filed challenging the show F.No.06/Prot/kNL/2023 dated Act, 1995, calling upon the not be evicted from the subject lands, in these writ petitions is the same, they cause notice ' 25.03.2025, petitioners to ■*- are common order. 4. The brief facts of the petitioners by name V. the agriculture lands case are that, the ancestors (grandfathers) of the Thippa Reddy and G. Nagi Reddy, Jointly purchased of an extent of Ac.21.37 Ac.24.43 cents and Ac.5-65 cents out of Ac.7-10 2^ respectively, totaling to Ac.27-02 cents out of total extent of cents in survey Nos.218 and cents in Munagapalapdu Village, from Fath4.Tia Begum, Yasin Begum, Afsar Begum, Abdul Shukur, Yakub Begum and Amina Begum through registered sale deed No. 1486 of 1947 dated 21.07.1947. Thereafter, a relinquishment deed bearing document No.738 of 1949 dated 18.05.1949 was executed by Nagi Reddy, during his lifetime, in favour of Erupa Yella Reddy. E. Yella Reddy and Tippa Reddy became absolute owners of the subject land. the b) While the matter stood thus, the A.P.State Wakf Board, Rep by its Regional Officer, Hyderabad, filed suit O.S.No.74 of 1967 against Thippa Reddy, Yella Reddy, Eswara Reddy and one Mohammed Miah, on the file of Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Kurnool, for recovery of possession of the subject land. By judgment dated 27.01.1970, the Civil Court declared that the property to an extent of Ac.4-01 cents on the western portion in survey No.218 and 234 as Wakf property and dismissed the suit insofar as the subject land i.e. Ac.27.02 cents, is concerned. No appeal was filed by the Wakf Board, against the judgment and decree, and it became final. c) After the death of Tippa Reddy, Yella Reddy became the absolute owner of the subject property, and the petitioners are the grandsons of Yella Reddy. The petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. The petitioners filed W.P.No.5925 of 2012 regarding the issuance of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed, and the writ petition was disposed of by. order dated 19.03.2012, directing the petitioners to make applications prescribed form and further directing the respondents to consider such in the applications and pass appropriate orders as per law. In terms of said order, the evenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool vide its order dated 12.12.2014 directed respondent No.6 (Tahsildar) to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds, and no appeal was preferred by the Wakf Board against the order dated 12.12.2014. Hence, the said order has become final. Page 4 of 14 d) While so, the Wakf board authorities, despite the judgmenrand ^ decree dated 27.01.1970 and order dated 12.12.2014, which attained finality kept the subject land under the prohibited list and therefore, respondents 4 to 6 are not mutating the petitioners' names. Questioning the action of the respondents, in placing the subject land in the prohibited list under Section 22 A of the Registration Act 1908, and non-mutation of the petitioners respect of the subject land, by deleting the subject land list, W.P.No. 15035 of 2024, is filed. names in from the prohibited 5. A coordinate bench of this Court, by order dated 16.07.2024. i the parties to maintain the in W.P.No.15035 of 2024, directed Subsisting the status status quo. quo order, a show cause notice was issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board vide F.No.06/Prot/KNL/2023 #ated 25.03.2025, under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995, calling upon the petitioners to submit reply as to why they should not be evicted from subject lands. the 6. Impugning the said show W.P.No.11136 of 2025 was filed. notice. cause dated 25.03.2025 7. Two separate counter affidavits Waqf Board in both the writ petitions. were filed by the Andhra Pradesh State It was contended, inter alia, that the subject lands belong to the Waqf Board. The petitioners have rights, and they have not acquired no semblance of any title over the subject land. The land of an extent of Ac. 24.43 cents and Ac.7-10 cents in survey Nos.218 and 234 respectively (total extent Ac.31.53 cents) covered by T.D.No.3072 was to Waqf to Zainab Bari Mosque, Zainab c'lven peta, Munagalapadu of Sunni Mosq are dedicated to Almighty God. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in Syed All v. A.P. Wakf Board’, 'When ojce a Waqf, always a Waqf, applies to the facts ue and the properties of the case. ^AIR 1998 SC 972 - rr ' A Survey Commissioner was appointed under Section 4(1) of the Waqf Act to enquire into the existing Waqf institutions and the attached properties. The Commissioner enquired and submitted a survey report. In column No. 12 of the survey report, it is mentioned that the land covered by of the said report, the b) T.D.No. 3072, is a Waqf property. In pursuance Gazette No.43-A dated 24.10.1963, page 20, under government published serial No.3057 showing the T.D. numbers, survey numbers and the extents of land. Unless the Gazette notification is challenged, the same remains in force. gazette notification has to be challenged within one year from the date of The publication. Once a survey is conducted, as per Section 4 of the Waqf Act, and a gazette notification is published as per Section 5 of the Waqf Act, the property vests with the Waqf Board. Section- 6 of the Waqf Act, 1954/1995, any person As per interested shall file a suit within one year. The sale deed dated c) aggrieved or 19.07.1947 does not show how the vendor therein got the title. As per Section 1954 and Section 51(1 A) of Waqf Act, 1995, any sale or 36-A of the Waqf Act transaction of Waqf property is ab-initio void, the Chief Executive Officer of under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, if satisfies that the Waqf Waqf Property property is under illegal occupation and the sale deeds are fictitious, he may send requisition to the District Collector to evict the illegal occupants. Since the Waqf Act is a special enactment, its provisions prevail over all other enariments. Under Section 107 of the Waqf Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are exempted. The suit O.S.No.74 of 1967 filed by the Waqf Board was dismissed on the ground of limitation The subject lands are Waqf lands, governed by A.P. (A.A) Inams Abolition Act, 1956 as amended by Act, 16/2013 with retrospective effect from 26.11.1956 to the effect that on abolition of personal inams, tie inams given to charitable and religious institutions alone are entitled for Ryotwari patta and , reason, a third party was given a patta, it will not affect the rights of the d) institution. The petitioners civil court nor neither got a declaration of title subject lands. No from a competent patta can acquired any title in respect of the be granted for Waqf properties. e) The person aggrieved by inclusion of lands i under Section 22-A of the Registration the competent authority in the prohibitory list Act, has to make r or to file declaratory suit to declare a representation to - that the property competent court, - IS a cloud on the title of cannot be entertained, and it is to be ciaimed by the petitioners i - IS not a Waqf property before the per the guideiines issued by this Court. Since there i the petitioners, t.ie as writ jurisdiction adjudicated in a Civil Court. f) W.P.No.11136 of 2025 .. . fi'eb challenging the show 25.03.2025, is not maintainable. The petitioners, approached the Court intending to grab the Waqf cause notice, without filing a reply. properties 8. Respondent No.8 in W.P.No.15035 of 2024 filed was contended, /ntsra/ia, that the subject land the same is included i Registration Act. a separate counter. It is shown as Waqf property and in the prohibited list under Section Because of letter 22(A)(1)(c) of the No.01/Prot/AP/Genl/2016, dated parties in respect of 16.11.2016, sale deed Waqf properties they have to any deed of transfer, from third or were not entertained. If the petitioners have any grievance. approach the Chief Executive Officer, seeking deletion of the subject Since the petitioners have A.P. State Wakf Board, property from the list under Section an effective alternative 22-A. 'e remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior ' learned counsel and Smt Counsel, assisted by ■ Buddharaju Po^itha, , learned standing Sri M. Naga Sai Lalith Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Khaja Basha, counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that having lost the suit in O.S.No.74 of 1967 on the file of learned Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Kurnool, filed by the Wakf Board, respondent No.2 herein, including the property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act, is illegal and arbitrary. He would submit that the right of respondent No.2, if any, over the schedule property has been extinguished by the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1970 in O.S.No.74 of 1967. Thus, the show cause notice issued under Section 54(1) of the Act is illegal and arbitHry. 10, Learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand, would submit that a survey was conducted under Section 4(1) of the Wakf Act and a gazette was published vide 43(A) dated 24.10.1963, showing the property as Wakf property. The petitioners did not challenge the gazette notification within the time stipulated. Once the survey is concluded and gazette is published as per Section 5 of the Act, the property vests with the Wakf Board. The sale deed dated 19.07.1947 does not indicate the vendor’s right over the property and the sale deed, itself is a void document. The suit O.S.No.74 of 1967 was dismissed on the ground of limitation and hence, it will not affect the right of the Board, over the property. 11. 12. The points for consideration are : 1. Whether inclusion of land of an extent of Ac.21.37 cents out of total extent of Ac.24.43 cents and Ac.5-65 cents out of Ac.7-10 cents in survey Nos.218 and 234 respectively, totaling to Ac.27-02 cents in Munagapalapdu Village, in the prohibited list of property under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, is legally permissible, given the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1970 in O.S.No.74 of 1967, on the file of learned Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Kurnool? \ \ 2. Whether the notice issued by respondent No KNL/2023 dated 25.03.2025 •2, vide F.No.06/Prot/ under Section. 54(1) of the Wakf Act, suffers from any illegality? 13. Before proceeding further, let the Court, i the facts and the finding recorded 1967. in the first instance examine court in O.S.No.^A of by the competent civil 14. The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board filed O.S.No.74 of 1967 represented by its Regional Officer ^ for recovery of the possession o the property of an extent of Ac.31-53 cents in survey 11os.218 and 234 St ua e at Zainabban alias Danial pet hamlet of Munagalapdu village. A copy writ petition. of the judgment is filed along with the 15. As seen from the appendix of , evidence of the said judgment, Andhra ' uazeue supplemental, entry regarding S.No.218 20 and 21 serial No.3057 notified in the gazette, true report on the survey of wakf and 234 at pages copy of commissioner’s annexure for the lands in survey Nos.218 and Notification in Andhra Pradesh Gazette regarding assignment of duties and delegation sale deed dated 19.07.1947; 234, Andhra Pradesh Gazette, are marked as Exs.AI to A5. A gift deed dated 18.05.1949 executed by Guttapati Nagi Reddy in favour of E Yellareddy and the cist reports regarding payment of tax. are filed as Exs.BI, B2 and B4. 16. Further, the basis for filing the 3rid gazette notification, competent civil court recorded suit, as noted supra, is a survey report notifying the properties as Wakf property. The a finding in para No,9 of the judgment in purchased by the petitioners' predecessors in respect of Ac.27-02 cents interest, on 19.07.1947. The Civil Court recorded a finding that the the property under a registered sale deed in O.S.No.74 of 1947) from Fatima predecessors in interest purchased dated 19.07.1947 (Ex.BI Begunt, “dulgam Mohiddin Begum Yasin and others. The Civil Court also recorded a finding that there is no evidence on how and when those vendors got possession of the land. In Ex.A2, entries regarding survey Nos.218 and 234, the name of one Jamal Sab has been shown as Mutavalli. The plaintiff/respond ent No.2 herein failed to show as to who endowed the property, the date of grant, etc. The trial Court recorded a specific finding that the suit was filed on 14.08.1967 and whereas Ex.BI is dated 19.07.1947, and hence the suit was barred by limitation, insofar as defendant No.3 is concerned. In fact, a finding is also recorded that defendants 1 and 2 died before filing of the suit. In respect of Ac.4-51 cents on the western portion in survey Nos 218 and 234, since there was no representation, the Court granted a decree in favour of the wakf board. The judgment rendered by the competent civil court became final. Thus, the findings recorded by the Civil Court would demonstrate that the right, if any, of the institution, was extinguished qua the property. The Civil Court also found that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners got the right and title over the property. 17. This Court, in W.P.No.42457 of 2017 (Valluru Siva Prasad v. The District Registrar Registration Stamps, Guntur and others), considered an identtcal issue and concluded that the judgment rendered by a competent civil court operates as res-judicata; the litigant need not approach the Wakf Tribunal, given the judgment by the competent civil court, before the Wakf Act came into force; since right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been violated (the property right), the writ is maintainable. This Court further concluded that the respondent No.2, Wakf Board, being an instrumentalityof the State, tried to overreach the judgment of the civil Court and also failed to adhere to the principles of litigation policy. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, a competent civil court recorded a specific finding that the suit filed by the Wakf Board, in respect of the subject property, is barred by limitation. Thus, the right, if any, of the Wakf 18. 19. Page 10 of 14 Board has been extinguished which was extinguished i revived under Section 107 of the Wakf Board under Section 27 of the Limitation under Section 27 of the Act. The right cannot be Limitation Act Act. 20. Whether Section 107 the decree of force, of the Wakf Act revives the right, if any, despite a competent civil court, before the Wakf Act, 1995 was considered by the Hon'ble another v. Five Gori Thaikkal came into T. Kaliamurthi and Apex Court in Wakf and others^ held as under at paras 42, 43 and 53, as follows; 42. From the above, it i ■ limitation at the time by the change in the law 't '■" ^'®ar that the right of action, when the new Act which is barred by comes into force, cannot be revived subsequently. In Ram Murti. Puran Singh [m held that Section 107 1963 Pun 393J, It has been 1963 inapplicab e to suits for possession of i in any wakf renders the Limitation Act, immovable properties comprised r any intertist therein but the right of a person to institute such a suit Which is already barred at the commencement of this Act It was further held that his title is extinguished and the person in possession and that where extinguished in favour of the cannot revive. a good title is acquired by the title of the true wrongdoer, it is not revived by that IS no remitter to the old title. owner is person again getting into possession. There i 43. Let us also see Section 112 of the Wakf Act repeals the Wakf Act, Sub-section (2) provides that dealing with repeal and 1954 and the Wakf notwithstanding such said Acts shall be savings. Sub-section (l) (Amendment) Act, 1984. repeal, anything done deemed to have been done this Act. In the that Section 10'/ has or any action taken under the or taken under the corresponding provisions of IS no specific provision which stipulates present case, there i any retrospective effect. If we look at Section 112, it is clear that sub-section (2) is the actions taken under the saving clause and provides validity to the repealed Act, As noted hereinearlier, the High Court assumption that a reading of Section 112 of has proceeded on the the Act ^2008 (9) see 306 'yi leads to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act pending proceedings also. are intended to apply to ^3. In view of the above authorities case, once it is held that the suit for we are of the view that in the present possession of the suit properties filed at the instance of the Wakf were barred under the Limitation Act, 1908, the necessary corollary would be to hold that the right of the Wakf properties stood extinguished in 1963 and, therefore, when Section 107 to the suit view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, came into force, it could not revive the extinguished rights. The authorities relied upon by the learn ad counsel for the respondents in this regard in Sree Bank Ltd. v. Sarkar Dutt Roy & Co. [AIR 1966 SC 1953 (1965) 3 SCR 708] , Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya [(1996) 4 SCC 652 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 816] , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. C. Padma [(2003) 7 SCC 713 ; 2003 SCC (Cri) 1709] and S Gopal Reddy w. State of A.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 596 ; 1996 SCC (Cri) 792] have no application to the facts of the case because in these cases, unlike the present case, there was no extinguishment of the rights. 21. In the case at hand, the suit O.S.No.74 of 1967, in respect of the subject property, was dismissed, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. Therefore, the right of the Wakf Board is extinguished under Section 27 of the Lirhitation Act, and it cannot be revived under Section 107 of the Wakf Act, cents out of the total extent of after it came into force. Inclusion of Ac.21.37 Ac.24.43 cents and Ac.5-65 cents out of Ac.7-10 cents in survey Nos.218 and 234, respectively, totalling Ac.27-02 cents in Munagapalapdu Village, in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22A of the facie, arbitrary and illegal. Having been unsuccessful Registration Act, is, prima in the suit, the authority, in the case at hand, tried to overreach the judgment by communicating the inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties. Such adopted by the authority, ig reprehensible. a course, 22. As indicated supra as the right to property under Article Constitution of India, is infringed, the writ petition filed maintainable. No doubt, the contention 300-A of the by the petitioner is of the learned standing counsel 1^- that, Apex case. The judgment once a waqf is a.'ways a waqf, has already Court; the said principle doesn’t and decree in a Civil Court, in respect of the same predecessors in interest of the petitioner and the and the judgment binds the been settled by the Hon’ble apply to the facts of this property between the Waqf Board, became final parties. The petitioners need waqf tribunal, given the judgment in the suit referred to parties. The authority, in the guise of intimation to notify supra, in the list of prohibited not approach the supra, betwee,n the the land referred to properties, indeed, tried to overreach the judgment of the Civil Court. If such a course is allowed, it would amount to a India. violation of the separation of The Executive powers adumbrated in the Constitution of or any instrumentality of the State authority over a judgment rendered by the higher court that cannot sit as an appellate competent Civil Court. It is only the las jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment court, as per the provisions of the Statute of a competent or supervisory powers. 23, As manifested supra, this court in W.P.No..42457 of 2017 Prasad v. The District Registrar Registration considered the identical i (Valluru Siva Stamps, Guntur and others) issue and eventually allowed the writ petition avoid repetition, the precedential iuri To- jurisprudence has not been noted herein. ©xcept for a brief reference. 24. iven the above discussion, these writ petitions are allowed espondents shall take steps to delete the subject land from the list of Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration prohibited properties under Consequently, the show cause notice Issued by respondent No.2 vide F.No,06/Prot/KNLy2023, dated 26.04.2025 is also hereby set aside espondent No.2 shall communicate to the Commissioner and Inspector -eneral of Registration and Stamps, forthwith, for deletion of the subject land Act. from the prohibited list under Section forthwith. In case of 22A(1){c) of the Registration Act, any delay on the part of respondent No.2 regarding said communication, since this Court held that inclusion of the property itself, is Illegal and arbitrary, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, shall forthwith delete the subject property from the prohibited list of properties under Section 22A(1 )(o)of the Registration Act. No orders. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. shall stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /dr" To, SECTION OFFICER Serrp.t^r''?xf', Secretary, (IDM) Minorities Welfare Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Vijayawada, Krishna District. aaesn btate 3. The Inspector Auditor, Kurnool District. 4. The District Collector, Kurnool District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. 6. The Tahsildar. Kurnool Rural, Kurnool. Department, Waqf Board, " ^-Sguare'Slng KlR"p"a“‘°Roar w ' 1 ^^d Stamps, District, Andhra Pradesh 52^50? ' Guntur 8. The Sub-Registrar, Kurnool Rural, Kurnool 9. The Inspector Auditor, Waqfs, Kurnool District 10. One CC to Ms. Buddharaju Poojitha Advocate 11. One CC to Sri Mallavelli Naga 12. One CC to Sri Shaik Khaja [OPUC] 13. Two CCs to GP for Social [OUT] 14. Two CCs to GP for Registration Pradesh. [OUT] 15. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 16. Three CD Copies [OPUC] Sai Lalith Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Basha, SC for Waqf Board, Advocate Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. & Stamps, High Court of Andhra [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.15035 of 2024 & 11136 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P.s, WITHOUT COSTS