G.Vajramma, Siddipet, Medak District v. A.P.State Wakf Board

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24372 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner aggrieved by letter dated 05.11.2001 of the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet addressed to the 5th respondent – Sub-Registrar, Siddipet approached this Court with this Writ Petition for issue of Mandamus in respect thereof. By the impugned letter, the 3rd respondent requested the 5th respondent not to allow any registration of land which is Wakf and Endowment property. The said letter was issued in respect of land in S.Nos.31, 1471 and 1476 of Siddipet village. The said letter further requested the 5th respondent to contact the 4th respondent for clarification if any required in this regard. The petitioner intended to purchase land in S.Nos.1476 and 1471 of Siddipet. It is contended that the impugned letter of the 3rd respondent is contrary to law. Even though it is alleged in the writ petition that after due enquiry land in S.Nos.1471 and 1476 measuring Ac.2.09 guntas was denotified and ceased to be wakf lands, this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not intend to go into the factual controversy relating to nature of the land.

The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Division Bench decision of this Court dated 18.10.2005 in W.A.No.1988 of 2005 in support of his contention. The Division Bench passed judgment therein basing on concession of Government Pleader to the effect that Revenue Divisional Officer has no power under the Registration Act to direct the Sub-Registrar to either register a document or refuse registration of a document. Ultimately, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal in the following terms: “In this view of the matter, we allow the writ petition to the extent of setting aside the direction given by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Sub-Registrar, but we want to clarify that there is no bar for the Revenue Divisional Officer to bring it to the notice of the Sub-Registrar the facts relating to notifications having been issued with respect to land notifying it to be wakf land or endowment land.

With these observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.” Reliance was also placed by the petitioner’s counsel on K.Sulochana v District Collector and District Magistrate, [1] Kurnool of Single Judge of this Court. On the other hand, it is contended by the Government Pleader that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 which was upheld by the Supreme Court prohibited registration of documents relating to properties belonging to wakfs falling under the Wakf Act, 1995. It is contended by the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent – A.P.State Wakf Board that Rule 2 of Andhra Pradesh Registration (Prohibition of Registration of certain documents opposed to Public Policy) Rules, 1999 also prohibit registration of documents relating to such wakf properties falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995. It is contended for the respondents that in spite of the above provisions of law, a concession was made by the Government Pleader before the Division Bench in the above matter.