IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8940 of 2009 Between: Sri Mohd. Farooq Khalidi, S/o. Shaikh Ibrahim Khalidi, R/o.H.No. 18-7-299/119/A,Amannagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & I.G. of Registration & Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary, The A.p. Wakf Board, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Khaja Moin Uddin, S/o. Khaja Arif Uddin, R/o. H.No. 18-11-31, Barkas, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. Mubeena Moin, W/o. Khaja Moin Uddin, R/o. H.No. 18-11-31, Barkas, 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 issue a Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) the impugned letter bearing NO. Canc/19976/09 dated 31-03-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as null and void with a consequential direction to him to take appropriate action for the cancellation of the Gift Settlement Deeds bearing No. 2248/08 dated 15- 04-2008 and 2338/08 dated 189-04-2008 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Azampura ii) direct the 2nd respondent not to accept any document for any further registration, with regard to the schedule property or any of its part and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 8940 of 2009 22-06-2009 Oral Order: This writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner is a devotee and a person interested in Dargah Hazrath Wajoodi Shah Saheb and Dargah Hazrath Khalid Mian Saheb. These two Dargahs owned by certain wakf properties. The 4th respondent is stated to be the Mutavalli of both the wakfs, who it is alleged alienated 1036 square yards under two registered gift settlement deeds in favour of his wife, the 5th respondent. These gift settlements under Registration No. 2248 of 2008 dated 15-04-2008 and 2338 of 2008 dated 19- 04-2008 were registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Azampura. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent as the Mutavalli is a mere trustee of the wakf properties and he violated his fiduciary obligations and limitations in alienating wakf properties without following the due process under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and that the 4th respondent has no manner of power, authority or the jurisdiction to alienate wakf properties under the colour of gift settlement deeds in favour of 5th respondent, his wife. It is also contended that the registration of such illegal gift settlement deeds executed by the 4th respondent, an unauthorized person and a mere Mutavalli is in transgression of the provisions of Section 22-A (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) and ought not to have been registered by the officials. The petitioner submitted representations dated 19-12- 2008 and 19-03-2009 requesting cancellation of the two registered gift settlement deeds. The 2nd respondent conveyed the impugned intimation to the petitioner which reads: With reference to your letter cited. It is to inform that you may approach the competent civil court of law for redressal of grievance as this department officials has no power to cancel any registered documents. Neither in the pleadings nor from the provisions of the Act is the petitioner able to place before this Court any statutory provision or any conceptual basis for the claim that the 2nd respondent is empowered to cancel registrations. Suffice it to notice that Registration is an act of State and a solemn and formal proceeding under the provisions of the Act. An abrogation of such an act of State has to be by a consecrated authority and under specific legislative provision. There cannot be any assumption as to a reservoir of unmentioned power in the 2nd respondent to undo all apprehended transgressions of laws or the rights of other persons. The 2nd respondent is a creature of the Act and will have to identify his executive powers within the spectrum of provisions of the Act. There being no provision that enables the 2nd respondent any oversight or other powers of interdiction or cancellation of registered sale deeds or other registered instruments, the 2nd respondent must be held to be denuded of any power to cancel the two registered gift settlement deeds executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent albeit the execution of such registered settlement deeds are in abuse of the powers of 4th respondent and in transgression of his powers as a mere Mutavalli of the Darghas in question. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. The petitioner is however at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies, if so advised. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-06-2009 Pvks