IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 8670 of 2001 Between: Meeraj Gavan Ali, S/o Aga Mohammed Raja Hussain R/o Mogilikuduru, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District, 3 The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the letter addressed by the 1st respondent herein in L.Dis.No.H10/1202/2001, dt. 3-3-2001 to the 2nd respondent requesting him not to register any sale of the alleged Wakf property viz., Peerla Panja, Burial Ground and their alleged endowed properties such as Inam Wet and Dry as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the powers of the 1st respondent herein and direct the 2nd respondent not to act upon the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VL.N.G.KMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.8670 OF 2001 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner challenges the letter addressed by the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, the ﬁrst respondent herein, in L.Dis.No.H10/1202/2001 dated 03.03.2001, whereby he requested the Sub-Registrar, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District, the second respondent herein, not to register any document pertaining to a particular wakf property. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the subject land admeasuring Ac.2.86 cents in Mulkiapalli Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. According to him, the said property originally belonged to one late Mirza Baquar Ali Baig and upon his death, it devolved upon his son Munim Aga Sajjad Hussain. Munim Aga Sajjad Hussain is said to have died in the year 1974 and the petitioner herein claims to be the son of the sister of Munim Aga Sajjad Hussain’s widow. He claims that he was the foster son of Munim Aga Sajjad Hussain and that he had inherited the subject property under the will executed by Munim Aga Sajjad Hussain in the year 1974. It is stated that when the Wakf Board attempted to treat the properties of Munim Aga Sajjad Hussain as wakf property the same was contested by him during his life time. W.P.No.4275 of 1971 was ﬁled by him aggrieved by the said action on the part of the Wakf Board and the same was allowed. Be that as it may, the ﬁrst respondent is said to have addressed the impugned letter to the second respondent asking him not to register any document in respect of the subject property treating the same as wakf property. The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject property was never declared to be wakf property and the attempts made by the Wakf Board in this regard had also failed in the light of the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.4275 of 1971. The petitioner also contended that it is not open to the registering authorities to refuse to act when a document was presented for registration basing upon instructions, such as were given by the first respondent through the impugned letter. This Court by its order dated 28.06.2001 directed the second respondent to register the sale deeds in question, making the same subject to the result of the writ petition. It is however submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no registration was eﬀected in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court. He contended that in the absence of a notiﬁcation issued under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1908’), it is was not open to the second respondent to act upon the instructions issued by the ﬁrst respondent by way of the impugned letter. He also contended that the impugned letter was without the authority of law as the ﬁrst respondent had no jurisdiction to issue such instructions to the second respondent. He relied upon the Judgments of this Court in P.NARASIMHA REDDY v. SUB-REGISTRAR, SHAMEERPET MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT AND ANOTHER[1], K.SULOCHANA v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KUNOOL AND OTHERS[2] a n d KUNCHANAPALLI MYSOORAIAH v. SUB-REGISTRAR, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT, A.P. AND OTHERS[3] in support of his contention. No counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the ﬁrst and second respondents. However, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board came on record as the third respondent in the writ petition, by virtue of the order dated 26.07.2001 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.18566 of 2001 in W.P.No.8670 of 2001. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the said application, the third respondent asserted that the subject land was wakf property. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the subject property was wakf property and was therefore not available for alienation as ordained by the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. He also placed reliance on the amended provisions of Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 and more specifically Section 22-A(c) which provides for an embargo on registration in respect of documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, etc. regarding immovable property owned by wakfs, falling under the Wakf Act, 1995. He however does not dispute the fact that for the prohibition under Section 22-A to come into play, there shall be a notiﬁcation issued by the State Government under Section 22- A(2). In the present case, it is an admitted position of fact that there is no notiﬁcation issued under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also support the contention that the registering authorities cannot act upon the letters or memos issued by the revenue authorities. This Court consistently held that unless there is a notiﬁcation issued under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, there is no power in the registering authority to refuse to register documents. In K.SULOCHANA’s case (2 supra), this Court held to the eﬀect that when the registering authorities, being statutory authorities, are discharging their functions, restrictions could not be placed upon the exercise of such statutory power by way of executive ﬁats. In the present case, the impugned letter dated 03.03.2001 is clearly without jurisdiction as there is no notiﬁcation issued under Section 22- A of the Act of 1908. The ﬁrst respondent without having any authority of law appears to have issued instructions to the registering authorities not to entertain documents for registration in respect of the subject land. If the third respondent has rights over the property claimed by the petitioner, it is for it to assert and prove its entitlement in accordance with law. Without doing so, it is not open to the third respondent to act through the oﬃces of the ﬁrst respondent and prevent the registration of documents. The impugned letter dated 03.03.2001 is therefore found to be without the authority of law and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 12th November, 2008. VGSR [1] 2005 (2) ALD 807 [2] 2005 (4) ALD 539 [3] 2005 (5) ALD 581