IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1399 OF 2009 Dt.03.12.2009 Between: The Sub-Registrar, Champapet Ranga Reddy District … Appellant And M/s. Bhagyanagar Investments & Trading Private Limited, a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Plot No.18, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta Hyderabad – 500 082 … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.6: Sri M.A.K. Mukheed THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1399 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal arises out of an interlocutory order dt.17.11.2009 in W.P.M.P. No.29917 of 2009 in W.P. No.9378 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to register the documents in respect of plots situated in layout bearing No.10/HADA/Layout/07, dt.1.11.2007, comprised in S.Nos.302 and 303 of Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellant, Sri K. Ramakirshna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 – A.P. Wakf Board. It is the case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition that the Gazette Notification dt.9.2.1989 issued by the State Government declaring the properties in dispute as wakf properties is wholly illegal as the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954, has not been followed. The respondents further pleaded that as far back as 1980 and 1984, Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) were issued in favour of the respondents’ vendors and that the Government has collected huge amounts for conversion of the agricultural lands for residential use in the year 2007. The appellant, however, pleaded by way of counter affidavit that since the Gazette Notification was issued in the year 1989, notifying the property in dispute as wakf property, the respondents cannot register the documents under which the properties were purportedly sold. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order observed that as the ORCs were issued in the years 1980 and 1984 and that the respondents have purchased the properties in the year 2006 and obtained layout sanctioned from Hyderabad Airport Development Authority (HADA), they were entitled to the interim order. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge has the result of granting main relief at the interlocutory stage. He further submitted that none of the pleas raised in the counter affidavit have been adverted to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Opposing these contentions, Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the very notification which was impugned in the Writ Petition was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.12275 of 1993 and batch and that a learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside the said Notification in his judgment in B. Gowra Reddy [1](deceased by L.Rs) v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and that in the Writ Appeal filed against the said judgment, no interim order has been granted suspending the said judgment. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. One of the main reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition filed by the respondents is to set aside Gazette Notification dt.9.2.1989 issued by the State Government declaring the properties in question as wakf properties. In our opinion, unless the petitioner succeeds in getting the notification set aside, no interim order to direct the appellant to register the sale deeds could be granted, for, granting of such an order amounts to allowing the Writ Petition itself. Apart from that, if the interim direction is carried out, third party interests will come in, as the properties change hands by virtue of the registered documents. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, having regard to the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the notification impugned in the Writ Petition was already set aside by this Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove, the learned Counsel is permitted to move the learned Single Judge and make a request for early hearing and disposal of the Writ Petition. If such a request is made, we are sure that the learned Single Judge will consider for hearing and disposal of the case the case at an early date. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2914 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03.12.2009 bnr [1] AIR 2002 AP 313