THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.231 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (PER Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) This is an appeal purportedly under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent by the A.P. State Wakf Board aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2611/2008 dated 3-11-2008 allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein assailing the correctness of the action on the part of the respondent No.2 herein, the Sub-Registrar in refusing to register the sale-transaction in respect of the land in Sy.No.852/1 to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents situated in Nunna village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District as illegal and consequently quashing the endorsement to that effect dated 21-11-2007. Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, the counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Government pleader for Revenue. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in brief are to the effect that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner claimed to be the owner having purchased the same from one Syed Avulullah Saheb, the vendor. The sale to an extent of Ac.1.67 cents in Sy.No.649 of Kavali Mandal, Nellore district belonged to the said same vendor was also purchased by the writ petitioner under the same document. When the document was presented before the Sub-Registrar, the respondent No.2 an endorsement was made under the impugned proceedings dated 21-11-2007 refusing to register the same on the ground that the said land is registered as ‘Khazi manyam’ and therefore the same is prohibited from being registered as per law. Hence, the writ petition contending that such a refusal is wholly outside the purview and jurisdiction of the registering authority. Contesting the claim of the petitioner the appellant filed a counter affidavit in detail denying about the proprietary rights of the writ petitioner and his vendors and supporting the impugned action on the ground that the said property is a Wakf property and registered in the revenue records as ‘Kondapalli Khazi Service Inam’, which is evident from the adangal. The name of the Inamdar was also shown as Kondapalli Khazi Service. Therefore, the refusal to register is perfectly well within the prohibition and powers contemplated under the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act as per the amended Act 19 of 2007 and hence it is not illegal. Further it was contended that the said property was declared as Wakf property as per the publication made in the A.P. Gazette dated 28-6-1962, and therefore, the petitioner or his vendor much less any parties can claim the said property as a private. Therefore, the vendor of the writ petitioner has no alienable right hence the petitioner cannot seek any indulgence. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the submissions from both sides and further taking note of the Section 22- A of the Registration Act as amended by Act 19 of 2007 allowed the writ petition holding that the said provisions specifically does not prohibit any such registration nor the said provision is attractable as no clause contained therein takes in the case of the appellant. Hence, the appeal. Sri S.M.Subhani, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended that having regard to the fact that the property in question is a Wakf property and as declared by the Gazette notification dated 28-6-1962 under the provisions of the Wakf Act and the same having not been challenged by the writ petitioner in any manner as contemplated under the law, it is not open for the respondent/writ petitioner to claim any propriety rights. Hence, the rejection of the registration is valid. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to the effect that the writ petitioner is not bound by any such notification nor would it come against him claiming the individual right, title and interest, and further having regard to the nature of objection taken which does not attract the very provision of which reliance is sought to be placed, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. Considering these and other submissions made in detail and on perusal of the material papers filed from both sides, the point which arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances the impugned action of the respondent No.2 herein viz., the Sub-Registrar in refusing to register the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 is valid? The undisputed facts as emerged from the checkered events are that the writ petitioner claims to have purchased the property under the registered sale deed from one Syed Avulullah Saheb along with another extent in Sy.No.649 of Kavali Mandal, Nellore and the same was presented for registration, which was refused to be acceded to on the ground that the said property is a ‘Khazi manyam’ and the same is prohibited from being registered as per the endorsement dated 21-11- 2007. The case of the appellant squarely rests on the claim that the said property is a Wakf property, which is a Khazi Service Inam and the same was already declared as such by way of issuance of Gazette Notification dated 28-6-1962 as per the provisions of the Wakf Act and the same is final, conclusive and nobody can claim any right, title or interest over the said property. From this what emerges is as to the effect of the alleged Gazette notification issued under the provisions of Wakf Act vis-à-vis the claim of the writ petitioner and also the correctness of the endorsement made by the registering authority in refusing to register on the ground that it is prohibited under the law, which is traced to Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended by Act 19 of 2007. The learned Single Judge did consider the said provision on a perusal thereof on each and every clause and found that none of the clauses are attracted in respect of the property as claimed by the appellant herein i.e., as a Wakf property, and therefore, the power being not traceable either under the said provision or even under the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or that of Wakf Act, 1995, such an endorsement is not sustainable, hence it was set aside. On this aspect, nothing much has been said on behalf of the appellant as to the applicability of the said provision or a bar of prohibition created for registration in respect of the property belonging to the appellant or the Wakf as such. Therefore, we do not find any error in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order on such ground is wholly unsustainable as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Coming to the other aspect about the effect of the publication made by way Gazette on 28-6-1962 under the provisions of the Wakf Act, it is now well established, no doubt such notifications and declarations would be final and binding only to those who are connected or interested in the Wakf or the institution, but not as against any 3rd parties, and therefore, no finality or binding nature can be attached in respect of such notifications against the 3rd parties. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is in no way concerned or connected or interested as such in the Wakf and thus the said notification has absolutely no binding effect. Similarly, even the other reocrd as sought to be relied on by the appellant in respect of the alleged report also would not come against the writ petitioner to claim the property in his own right, title and interest. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention of the appellant that in view of such declaration, the registration could not have been done nor the writ petitioner could have claimed any propriety rights. On both these aspects, we hold that such notifications would not have any adverse effect on the propriety rights claimed or held by any of the 3rd parties in their own right, title and interest. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the above appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J -04-2009 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Writ Appeal No.231 of 2009 Dated: -4-2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD P.D. Judgment In W.A.No.231 of 2009 Prepared by His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Circulated to His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad for His Lordship’s perusal.