THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.224 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a declaration in the form of Mandamus as regards the alleged inaction on the part of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada Rural, 5th respondent herein in enforcing the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 54 of the Wakf Act, in respect of Ac.70.46 cents of land in R.S.No.852/1 of Nunna Village, Krishna District. The petitioner contends that his father was a Khazi for the Mustafanagar, Kondapaly Circle, Krishna District and that the land in R.S.No.852/1 belongs to the wakf. Invoking Section 21-A of the Act and 54 of the Wakf Act, the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent was not supposed to register any lands in relation to the said land. He complains that day in and day out, documents are being entertained. The 6th respondent herein, who got impleaded, brought to the notice of this Court, an order dated 03.11.2008 in W.P.No.2611 of 2008 in respect of the very land as well as the judgment in W.A.No.231 of 2009 filed against it. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent. It is no doubt true that the land in Survey No.852 of Nunna Village was claimed as wakf land. However, the petitioner in W.P.No.2611 of 2008 demonstrated before this Court that no Gazette was issued in respect of that land and taking the same into account, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the registering authority to receive the documents in relation to the said land and process the same, in terms of Section 65 of the Registration Act. The Wakf Board filed W.A.No.231 of 2009 against the said order. The writ appeal was dismissed on 24.04.2009. The petitioner seeks a relief exactly in the opposite direction. Whatever may be the grounds urged by the petitioner, once this Court has taken the view and held that it is permissible for the Registrar to entertain the documents in respect of the land, a different view cannot be taken in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 30.04.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.224 of 2009 Date: 30.04.2009 JSU