c ^ APHC*d10060402021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATL WRIT APPEAL NO: 419 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the ^ order in W.P No 7192/2020 dt. 04.11.2020 on the file of the High Court of A.P^ BETWEEN: 1. A.P.State Waqf Board Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer 4^^ & 5^^ Floors, Imdad Ghar, Oppikaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Inspector Auditor, Waqfs, SPSR Neilore District. Appellants/Respondents No.2 & 4__ AND Sri Cherukupalii Padma narayana Reddy, S/o. C.Pitchi Reddy, aged about 54 years, OcciBusiness, R/o.24-2-511/1, Saraswathi Nagar, Nellore-3. M/s. CPR Gardents, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Cherukupalii Padma Narayana Reddy, R/o. 24-2-511/1, Saraswathi Nagar, Nellore-3 Sri Mali Reddy Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o.M.Jayarami Reddy, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business R/o.Plot No.403, 1^*^ Line, 2"^^ Main, Central Avenue, Magunta Layout, Neilore. Sri Burla Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. B.Damodhar Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.NO.24-7-38, KITES School, Magunta Layout, Neilore. 1. 2. 3. 4. Sri Avula Mallikarjuna, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.GF-A, Vaibhav Enclave Apartment, Magenta Layout, Nellore Bijjivemula Ramana Reddy, S/o.B.Chenchu Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business. Bijjivemula Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.B.Chenchu Reddy, Both R/o.27-1-160, 2"^ Street, Andithya Nagar, Near Children's Park, Nellore. Sri Kasamsetty Raghu Ram, S/o. K.A.Narayan, Aged about 49 years, Occ; Business, R/o. 24-7-77, Plot No.402, 1"^ Lane, 2 Central Avenue, Magunta Layout, Nellore Sri Mannem Nagesh Reddy, S/o.Late M.Gopala Krishna Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.201, 3'"^ Floor, Vani Mahal Apartment, Backside Street Venkateswara Temple, Magunta Layout, Nellore. Alapati Krishna Prasad, S/o.A.madhusudhan Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.GF/C, Vaibhav Enclave Apartment, Magunta Layout, Nellore. 11. Sri Edla Konda Reddy, S/o. Late E.Vekat Reddy, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Business R/o.Flat N0.3A, Vaibhav Enclave Apartment, Magunta Layout, Nellore. 12. Sri Arugunta Hari Kishore, S/o. Late A.Dasaratha Rami Reddy, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.NO.24-7-76, 2"^ Main Road, Central Avenue, Magunta Layout, Nellore. 5. Sri 6. Sri 7. 8. nd Main, 9. 10. 13. Sri Arugunta Prathima, W/o.Arugunta Hari Kishore, Aged abot 61 years, Occ; Business R/o.D.NO.24-7-76, 2"^ Main Road, Central Avenue, Magunta Layout, Nellore. •f 14. Smt. Mannem Srivani, W/o.M.Nagesh Reddy, Aged aout 51 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Flat No.201, Vani Mahal Apartment, Behind Blaji Temple, Magunta Layout, Nellore. Sri. Konda Reddy Venkata Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. K.V.Krishna Reddy, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.NO.24-2-1231, Venkateswara Swamy Temple Road, Magunta Layout, Nellore. Sri. Pachipulusu Sreenivasa Rao, S/o.Sreeramulu, Aged about 44 years, Occ:Business, R/o.D.No.l6A52, Madhapati Vari Veedhi, Nellore - 1. Smt. Ch.Usha Kiran, W/o.Ch.Bhuduru Ray Josan, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.Wakidu, Nellore District. Sftit. V.Padmavathi Devi, W/o.VMV Subba Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.24-2-1885, Flat No.5, Siddivinayaka Residency, 1"^ Cross Road, Central Avenue, Magunta Layout, Nellore. Smt.Balakavi Padmalalitha, W/o.Sarath Babu, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.24-2-1891, Siddivinayaka Residency, 1^'^ Cross Road, Central Avenue, Magunta Layout, Nellore. 15. 16. 17. 18. ■ 19. Respondents /Writ Petitioners 20. The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, ■ Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District. The Sub-Registrar, Nellore, Near Old Bus stand. Jubilee Hospital Compound, Nellore. The Tahsildar, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. / 21. 22. 23. Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in judgment passed by the single judcie of this Hon'ble court in WP No. 7192/2020, dated 04-11-2020 pending adjudication of the present Writ Appeal. lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Between;- l.Cherukupaili Padma Narayana Reddy S/o C Pitch! Reddy Aged about 54 Years Occupation Business R/ o 242511/1 Saraswathi N agar Nellore-3 M/s C P R Gardens Rep by its Managing Partner Cherukupalli Padma Narayana Reddy R/o '' 242511/1 Saraswathi Nagar Nellore 3 2. Sri Burla Chalcradhar Reddy S/o B Damochar Reddy Aged about 45 Years Occupation Business R/o DNo 24738 KITES School Magunta Layout Nellore 3. Sri Avula Mallikarjuna Aged about 43 Years Occupation Business R/ o Flat No GFA Vaibhav Enclave Apartment Magunta Layout Nellore 4. Sri Bijjivemula Ramana Reddy ■ S/o B Chenchu Reddy Aged about 54 Years Occupation Business 5. Sri 'Bijjavemula Bhaskar Reddy S/o B Chenchu Reddy Both R/o of 271160 2nd Street Andithya nagar Near Childrens l-ark Nellore 6. Sri Kasamsetty Raghu Ram S/o K A Narayan Aged about 49 Years Occuaption Business R/o 24777 Plot No402 15k Lane 2nd Main Central Avenue Magunta Layout Nellore 7. Sri Mannem Nagesh Reddy — S/o Late M Gopala Krishna Reddy Aged about 54 Years'Occupation Business R/o Flat No201 3rd Floor Vani Mahal Apartment Backside Street Venkateswarar Temple Magunta Layout Nellore 8. 20 Alapati Krishna Prasad S/o A Madhusudhan Rao Aged about 52 Years Occupation Business R/o Flat No GF/C Vaibhav Enclave Apartment Magunta Layout Nellore 9. < 10. Sri Edla Konda Reddy S/o Late E VEnkat Reddy Aged about 75 Yearn Occupation Business R/o Flat no3A Vaibhav Enclave Apartment Magunta Layout NelloreS X' Sri Arugunta Hari Kishore s/o Late A Dasartha Rami Reddy Aged about 67 Years Occupation Business R/ o Door No24776 2nd Main Road Central Avenue Magunta Layout NelloreS 11. Sri Axgunta Prathima W/o Aru gunta Hari Kishore Aged about 61 Years Occupation Housewife R/o Door No 24776 2nd Main Road Central Avenue Magunta Layout NelloreS 12. Mannem Srivani w/o M Nagesh Reddy Aged about 51 Years Occupation Housewife R/o Flat No201 3rd floor Vani Mahal Apartment Behind Balaji Temple Nellore3 13. Sri Konda Reddy Venkata Srinivas Reddy S/o K V Krishna Reddy Aged about 51 Years Occupation Business R/o Door No 2421231 Venkateswara Swamy Temple Road Magunta Layout Nellore3 14. ri,- Sri Pachipulusu Sreenivasa Rao S/o P Sreeramulu Aged about 44 Tears Occupation Business R/o DNo 16/152 Madhtapathi Vari Veedhi Nellorel 15. 16. Ch Usha Kiran w/o Ch Bhuduru Ray Josan Aged about 38 Years Occupation Housewife R/o Wakidu Nellore Distiict ...Petitioners/Respondents No. 1, 2,4 to 17 AND l.The Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board Rep. by its Claief Executive Officer, 4* floor, Imadad Char Complex, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh / 21 / 2. The Inspector Auditor Waqfs SPSR Nellore District ...Respondents/ Appellant! 3. Sri Mali Reddy Venkata Krishna Reddy S/o M Jayaraml Reddy arred about 55 years Occ Business R/o Plot No 403 1st Line 2nd Main Central Avenue, Magunta Layout Nellore 4. Srnt V Fadmavathi Devi, W/o VMV Subba Rao Aged about 49 years Occ Housewife R/o'7421885 Flat No 5 Siddivmayalca Residency 1st doss Road Central Avenue Magunta Layout Nellore 5. Smt balakavi i;adinalalitha W/o Sarath Babu Ao-ed about 57 year's Occ Housewife RM D No 2421891 Siddivinayaka Residency Road Cenhal Avenue Magunta Layout 6 The state of Andhra Pradesh Rep bv its Principal Secretary Reveirue Department Velagapudi Amar-avaiiii 7. The District Collector SPSR Nellore District 8. The Sub Registrar Nellore Near Old Bus stand Jubilee Hospital Compound Nellore 9. The Tahsildar, Nellore Rural Mandal Nellore Distric t Nellore 1st Cross Respondents/ Respondents in the circumstances stated Petition under Section 1 Si CPC praying that in the affidavit f„ed in support of the petition, the High Court may P'-ed to the interim suspension order dated 04-05-2(523 in W.A No. 419 of 2023 vacate in the interest of justice. ^ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHAIK KHAJA PASHA ^ LE^RnId CoSN'^irAPPEARmG ^OR TH^ LAWYERS ,,0 p Counsel fpr the Respondent Nos.18 & 19 Counsel for the Respondent Nos.20 to 23 The Court made the following bfder: : SRI JANGAM VENKATA SIV^- SAI : GP FOR REVENUE APHC010060402021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 419/2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the Judgment and order in W.P No 7192/2020 dt. 04.11.2020 by allowing the present Writ Appeal. Between: 1.THE AP STATE WAQF, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 4TH AND 5 TH FLOORS OPP.KALESWARA DISTRICT. FLOORS, IMDAD GHAR, RAO MARKET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA 2.THE INSPECTOR AUDITOR, WAQFS, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. CHERUKUPALLI, S/0. C.PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/0.24-2-511/1, NELLORE-3, SARASWATHI NAGAR, 2. M/S CPR GARDENTS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHERUKUPALLI PADMA NARAYANA REDDY, R/0. 24-2-511/1, SARASWATHI NAGAR, NELLORE-3 3. SRI MALI REDDY VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O.M.JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O.PLOT NO.403, 1ST LINE, 2ND MAIN, CENTRAL AVENUE, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 4. SRI BURLA CHAKRADHAR REDDY, S/0. B.DAMODHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.24-7-38, KITES SCHOOL, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 5. SRI AVULA MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. R/O. FLAT NO.GF-A, VAIBHAV ENCLAVE BUSINESS, APARTMENT, MAGENTA LAYOUT, NELLORE yfcj^<RCj '.WJiMo.41-9 of2023 2 6. SRI BIJJIVEMULA RAMANA REDDY, S/O.B.CHENCHU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS. 7. SRI BIJJIVEMULA BHASKAR REDDY, S/O.B.CHENCHU REDDY, BOTH R/O.27-1-160, 2RC STREET, ANDITHYA NAGAR, NEAR CHILDREN'S PARK, NELLORE. 8. SRI KASAMSETTY RAGHU RAM, S/0. K.A.NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/0. 24-7-77, PLOT NO.402, 1ST LANE, 2ND MAIN, CENTRAL AVENUE, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE 9. SRI MANNEM NAGESH REDDY, S/0.LATE M.GOPALA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS NO,201, 3NI FLOOR, VANI MAHAL APARTMENT, STREET VENKATESWARA TEMPLE, NELLORE. 10.ALAPATI KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O.A.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, VAIBHAV ENCLAVE APARTMENT, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 11.SRI EDLA KONDA REDDY, S/0. LATE E.VEKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O.FLAT N0.3A, VAIBHAV ENCLAVE APARTMENT, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 12.SRI ARUGUNTA HARI KISHORE, S/0. LATE A.DASARATHA RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.N0.24- 7-76, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CENTRAL AVENUE, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. R/O.FLAT BACKSIDE MAGUNTA ^YOUT, R/O.FLAT NO.GF/C 13.SRI ARUGUNTA PRATHIMA, W/O.ARUGUNTA HARI KISHORE, AGED ABOT 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/0.D.N0.24-7-76, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CENTRAL AVENUE, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 14.SMT MANNEM SRIVANI, W/O.M.NAGESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.FLAT NO.201, VANI MAHAL APARTMENT, BEHIND BALAJI TEMPLE, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. .WJ..!N'o.419 of2023 3 15. SRI KONDA REDDY VENKATA SRINIVASA REDDY, S/0. K.V.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.24-2-1231, VENKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 16.SRI PACHIPULUSU SREENIVASA RAO, S/O.SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.16/152, MADHAPATI VARI VEEDHI, NELLORE - 1. 17.SMT CH USHA KIRAN, W/O.CH.BHUDURU RAY JOSAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O.WAKIDU, NELLORE DISTRICT, 18.SMT V PADMAVATHI DEVI, W/O.VMV SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT R/0.24-2-1885, FLAT N0.5, 1ST CROSS ROAD, CENTRAL 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE SIDDIVINAYAKA RESIDENCY, AVENUE, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 19.SMT BALAKAVI PADMALALITHA, W/O.SARATH BABU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.24-2-1891, SIDDIVINAYAKA RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS ROAD, CENTRAL AVENUE, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. 20.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BV ITS PRINCIPAL VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI. 21.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 22.THE SUBREGISTRAR, NELLORE, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, JUBILEE HOSPITAL COMPOUND, NELLORE. 23.THE TAHSILDAR, NELLORE RURAL MANUAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 ^CJ^<RCJ •.WJlMo.419 of2023 4 condone the delay of number of days in resubmitting the present appeal W.A S.R No 4797 of 2021 and thereby numbered by allowing this I.A. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 pleased to suspend the order in judgment passed by the single judge of this Hon'ble court in WP No. 7192/2020, dated 04-11-2020 pending adjudication of the present Writ Appeal. lA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 vacate the interim suspension order dated 04-05-2023 in W.A No. 419 of 2023 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.SHAIKKHAJA BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2. JANGAM VENKATA SIVA SAI 3.NOMOS VISTAS THE LAWYERS CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : U . o . 2- o JUDGMENT fPer Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.7192 of 2020, the respondent nos.2 & 4 therein preferred this intra court appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent. DATE :^aei<RCJ M./JlMoAW of2023 2. The respondent nos. 1 to 19 filed the writ petition challenging the action of appellant no.l-the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, in including their properties in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 based upon the proceedings of appellant no.2-The Inspector Auditor, Waqfs, SPSR Nellore District. Through the impugned orders, the said writ petition was allowed. 3. For clarity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status in the writ petition. 4. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioners are absolute owners of various extents of properties in Survey No.618/2 of SPSR Nellore District, which were purchased by their predecessors through registered sale deeds. That the suit vide O.S.No.54 of 1973 filed by Waqf Board for recovery of possession of the land was dismissed on 06.09.1975 and the said judgment had become final. That the judgments delivered by civil Courts during the years 1948 to 1984 clearly show that the property situated in Survey No.618/2 is a private property but not waqf property and despite having knowledge of the proceedings before civil Courts, the Waqf Board had never chosen to contest and allowed the judgments to become final. However, the Waqf Board included the subject property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 based JfCJ ^ ‘RCJ '.WA-^0.419 of2023 6 on the proceedings of the Inspector Auditor, Waqfs. The said action of the Waqf Board is not only in violation of the decisions rendered by civil Courts regarding the subject property but also in utter infraction of the procedure contemplated for declaration of property as waqf property and for inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties. 5. The respondent nos.2 & 4 resisted the claim by filing counter affidavit inter alia contending that the subject lands in an extent of Ac.0-62 cents in Survey No.532/3 & Ac.7.20 cents in Survey No. 618/2 are Inam lands belong to Mouzan Service of Jamia Mosque as per the Resettlement Register, which is covered by T.D.No.374 of the Survey Commissioner's Report. However, due to typographical error, at Serial No.208 of the gazette notification published in A.P.Gazette Part.II; dated 02.05.1963, instead of the subject property, the property in an extent of Ac. 1-04 cents in Survey No.619 was inadvertently shown as waqf property. Further, the District Collector, unaware of the implication of Inam Fair Register and the Resettlement record, had sent a false report stating that the subject property is a private property. That possession of the petitioners and their predecessors is unlawful and moreover the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to waqf properties. That manager or mutawalli of waqf institution has no right to alienate and the registered deeds relied on by the petitioners would not o^a^<RCj .WJl.9fo.419 of2023 1 confer any right and title and they are void ab initio in view of Section 36-A of the Waqf Act,1954 and Section 51(1){A) of Waqf Act,1995. That Section 85 of the Waqf Act bars jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of waqf property and thus the decree passed in O.S.No.ll37 of 2007 passed by Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is void and without jurisdiction. That the petitioners instead of following to the procedure prescribed for deletion of property from the list of prohibited properties had chosen to file this writ petition and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. That the issue regarding title dispute could only be resolved by competent Court by declaration of title but not by writ Court. The writ petition is meritless and deserves dismissal. 6. The learned single Judge upon considering the material as well as submissions allowed the writ petition directing respondent no.5- The Sub Registrar, Nellore, to remove the properties in Survey No.618/2 pertaining to the petitioners from the list of prohibited properties, while setting aside the action of respondent no.2-Waqf Board in including the properties of the petitioners in Survey No.618/2 in the list of prohibited properties. 7. The order so passed by the learned single Judge was assailed in this writ appeal. ^C3 ^ ‘RCJ V.3X3fo.419 of2023 o 8 8. Heard Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Govardhan Venu, learned counsel appearing for the firm M/s.Nomos Vistas the Lawyers for respondent nos.l to 17. 9. Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed in writ petition and the grounds of appeal, would contend that availability of alternative remedy under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 bars the petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and further claim as to right and title over property cannot be decided by writ Court and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal on that ground alone. He further contended that the learned single Judge having held that the subject property was waqf property as per the Survey commissioner's report, ought not to have allowed the writ petition. That the learned single Judge misconstrued the contents of the counter affidavit as an admission by waqf board that the subject property was not notified in Gazette. He would further contend that the order impugned in this appeal is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal. lO.The learned counsel for respondents in unison contended that the learned single Judge upon meticulous analysis of facts and circumstances of the case had rightly allowed the writ petition and the said order does not '.WJi.!Nb.419 of2023 9 require any interference of this Court in this appeal. The writ appeal lacks merits and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 11. Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, prohibits registration of certain documents. As per Section 22-A(l)(c), the documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immoveable property, owned by wakfs falling under the Waqf Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so, are prohibited from registration. 12. There is no dispute regarding inclusion of the subject property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act on the ground that it is waqf property. The petitioners are claiming the subject property to be their private property. 13. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by Waqf Board in categorical terms state that due to typographical error, at Serial No.208 of the gazette notification published in A.P.Gazette Part.II, dated 02.05.1963, instead of the subject property situated in Survey No.618/2, the property in an extent of Ac. 1-04 cents in Survey No.619 was inadvertently shown as waqf property. .WA^o.419 of2023 10 14. Further, the letter dated 16.09.2011 of the Tahsildar, Nellore addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board confirms that the subject property situated in Survey No.618/2 was not mentioned in the Gazette of the year 1963 and what was mentioned therein is the land situated in Survey No.619. 15. A conjoint reading of the contents of the counter affidavit and the letter of the Tahsildar, leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the subject property was never part of any Official Gazette issued by Waqf Board declaring it as waqf property. 16. The process of identifying and declaring a property as waqf involves a preliminary survey by a Survey Commissioner. The report from this survey will then be forwarded to the Waqf Board, and eventually, the final list of waqf properties is published in the Official Gazette. This publication is the crucial step that gives the list legal finality and constitutes public notice. The publication of a gazette is a crucial step in the legal declaration of a property as a waqf property under the Waqf Act, 1995. This publication is the final part of a multi-step process that provides public notice and legal standing to the waqf. yfCJ<^(R£J M.^AMo.419 of2023 11 17. According to the learned counsel for respondents the survey report discloses that the subject property situated in survey No.618/2 is a waqf property. As stated supra, unless an official gazette was published notifying a property as subject property, mere mentioning of property as waqf property in the survey report would be of no avail. In Gosula Ramulu and others v. A.P.Wakf Board and other^, a learned single Judge of unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh held to the same effect that in the absence of an appropriate notification under section 5 of the Waqf Act mere survey report does not cloth a property with the character of waqf property. 18. In Tamil Nadu wakf Board v. Hathija Amma! Dead) by Lrs. And other^ the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of failure to include a property by inadvertence or otherwise also it was necessary for the Waqf Board to take action. It is not at all the case of the Waqf Board that after identifying the inadvertent mistake occurred in publishing Gazette regarding wrong inclusion of some other property in place of the subject property, they took any remedial measures/steps by issuing any fresh Gazette. 19. Unless the subject property is declared as waqf property by publishing Gazette, its inclusion in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, is illegal and without jurisdiction. . \ 2017(5) ALD 298 ^ (2001) 8 see 528 .WA.:Nb.419of2023 12 The learned single Judge upon considering the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to supra and upon meticulous analysis of facts of the case in proper perspective had rightly allowed the writ petitions directing the authorities to remove the properties from the list of prohibited properties. The said order does not require interference of this Court. Therefore, the writ appeal deserves dismissal. 20. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order' passed on 04.05.2023 and being extended till date shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, Advocate [OPUC]-^ Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri Jangam Venkata Siva Sai, Advocate [OPUC] ^ One CC to Sri Nomos Vistas The Lawyers, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. Cnr I HIGH COURT DATED: 16/09/2025 JUDGMENT WANO. 419 OF 2023 5 2 3 SEP 2025 ^ Current Section ^ m Co DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS