APHC010071902026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4274/2026 Between: 1. VASEPALLI CHENCHI REDDY, S/O V. RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/O GURAVAREDDY PALEM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. VASEPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O VASEPALLI CHENCHI REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O 2-22-205, PLOT NO. 98, ROAD NO. 3, ARUNA SOCIETY, OPP KPHB, JAYANAGAR, KUKATPALLY, TIRUMALAGIRI, HYDERABAD - 500072. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP - 522503. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, A.P. STATE WAQF BOARD, 4TH FLOOR, IMDAD GHAR WAQF COMPLEX, NEAR KALESWARA RAO MARKET, TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA, AP - 520001. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP - 523001. 4. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, REGISTRAR OFFICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP - 523001 ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2 in issuing circular no. F. No. 01/Prot/AP/Genl/2016 dated 26-08-2016 by including the property of the Writ Petitioner no.1 in Plot No.s 27 and 28 of Sy. No. 253, Ongole Town, Ongole District as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in violation of Rules of A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same, and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Assailing the circular issued by respondent No.2 vide F.No.01/Prot/AP/Genl/2016 dated 26.08.2016, whereby plot Nos.27 and 28, in survey No.253, Ongole Town and District, owned by petitioner No.1, were included in the list of prohibited property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), the above writ petition was filed. Page 3 of 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner of plot Nos.27 and 28, admeasuring 275.8/9 square yards, bearing door No.7-331(4) consisting of an RCC building in survey No.253, Ongole Sub-Division, Ongole Municiplaity, having purchased the same under a registered document bearing No.4650/2011 dated 18.04.2011. In 2014, petitioner No.1 executed a lease deed in favour of State Bank of Mysore, Ongole, vide document No.5322 of 2014 for a period of nine years from 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2022. After expiry of the lease, a fresh lease agreement was entered into, with the State Bank of India, on 30.03.2024, and when the document was submitted for registration, respondent No.4 issued an endorsement, refusing to register the same on the ground that the subject property was included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act. Learned counsel would submit that the inclusion of the subject property in the list of prohibited properties without issuing any notice to the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, learned standing counsel, on instructions, would submit that property to an extent of Ac.10-40 cents in survey No.253, Ongole is covered under T.D.No.1999, published in the A.P.Gazette No.26, Part (II) dated 28.06.1962, which was subsequently confirmed by Errata Gazette Notification No.11, Part (II) dated 17.03.2016. Learned counsel would further submit that once the property is included in the list of prohibited properties, the petitioners p. 4 have to make an application to the CEO of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, seeking deletion of the properties. If the petitioners make an application, respondent No.2 will consider and pass appropriate orders strictly as per the provisions of the Unified Wakf Management, Empowerment Efficiency and Development Act, 2025. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners will make an appropriate application before respondent No.2, by annexing all the documents. 6. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side giving liberty to the petitioners to make application in the proforma prescribed, before respondent No.2 by annexing all the relevant documents in respect of the aforementioned property, purchased by petitioner No.1 vide document bearing No.4650/2011 dated 18.04.2011, within one week from the receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such an application, the learned respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within four weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 16.02.2026 IKN p. 5 144 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4274 of 2026 Date: 16.02.2026 IKN