THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25689 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The petitioners purchased an extent of Acs.3.00 of land in Sy.Nos.180/1B and 2A of Kothavalasa Village, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vijayanagaram, through a document, dated 24.02.2007. It is stated that the land was divided into plots and individual plots were sold to intending purchasers. The petitioners presented the sale deeds executed in relation to the individual plots before the second respondent for registration. Complaining that the second respondent has not admitted the documents to registration, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13146 of 2007 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.08.2007, directing the second respondent to process the documents presented by the petitioners in accordance with law and to finalize the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. It was also made clear that in case the documents cannot be registered, in view of the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short, ‘the Act’), the reasons shall be communicated to the petitioners within the same time. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13146 of 2007, the second respondent issued notice, dated 5.9.2007, to the petitioners. He observed that according to the information received by him from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayanagaram and Srikakulam, the lands covered by the documents belong to Endowment Department and that in view of the prohibition contained under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act, the documents cannot be registered. The petitioners are required to submit the documents, if any, through which permission was accorded by the competent authority. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the notice, dated 21.09.2007. It is pleaded that the Endowments Department has absolutely no right or claim over the land and that it was a patta land. Reference is made to a decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.43 of 1980, dated 30.07.1982 passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter-affidavits. The first respondent submits that the lands are part of the endowment, in favour of Sri Kashivishweswara Swamy Temple, Parvathipuram and that the petitioners did not derive any title on the basis of an alleged sale deed. The vendors of the petitioners are said to be persons without any title. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that once the lands are found to be owned by the religious institutions, the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Act, gets attracted. Heard Smt.P.Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Endowments and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners no doubt purchased the land under a sale deed of the year 2007. However, much would depend upon the nature of title held by the vendor of the petitioners. If the lands are owned by the temples or religious institutions, the mere fact that one individual had executed sale deed in favour of another in relation to the lands, does not make any difference as to title. Obviously, with a view to curb the indiscriminate sale of lands of this nature, the A.P. State Legislature had amended the Registration Act by including Section 22-A. One of the categories of lands, as regards which registration of documents is prohibited, is belonging to endowment institutions or wakfs. The role, which a registering authority can play whenever a situation covered by Section 22-A of the Act arises, is very limited. Once prima facie material exists before him that the prohibition gets attracted, he would be under obligation to desist from registering the document. It is for the aggrieved parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. If the petitioners are of the view that the lands in question do not belong to any temple or endowment, they can certainly file an application under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, before the competent authority. If it is established that the land does not belong to a temple or endowment, the petitioners cannot find fault with the second respondent in issuing the notice. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and it is left open to the petitioners to seek declaration before the competent Court or authority, as regards the nature of land and pursue further remedies depending on the outcome of such proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated: .01.2009. GJ