1. The case of the petitioner is that land to an extent of Ac.4.64 cents in Sy.No.91 of Harischandrapuram Village, Tulluru Mandal, Guntur District is ancestral property of the petitioner and the same was in possession and enjoyment of the family members of the petitioner for more than 90 years. After demise of the father, petitioner succeeded to the property. Pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued on 20.02.1996. With an intention to dispose of the said property, petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Amaravathi (4th respondent) to ascertain the market value and stamp duty. The 4th respondent informed the petitioner that Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps vide Memo G1/7106/2014 dated 20.08.2014 circulated list of prohibited lands. Survey No.91 is also included and the same is shown as belonging to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple (6th respondent). Petitioner was therefore informed that in view of the letter of Commissioner, he is not entertaining any document with respect to land situated in Sy.No.91. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.

2. Heard Ms. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, standing counsel for respondent No.6 and learned Government Pleader for Endowments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that land in Sy.No.91 to an extent of Ac.4.64 cents is a private patta land and in possession and enjoyment of the family members of the petitioner for several decades. Unless notification is issued in accordance with Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act prohibiting such registration, no authority including Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps can prohibit the registration of any property. Thus, order of Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps is ex facie illegal without competence and jurisdiction. It is further contended that registering authority cannot refuse to act on the request of a person for processing a document for registration based on executive orders.

4. In support of the contentions urged, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) P. Srinivasulu and others v. Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, Chittoor District and others, 2013 (1) ALT 345

(ii) Pasuparthi Jayaram and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others, 2013 (4) ALT 541

(iii) Judgment in Writ Appeal No.106 of 2014 dated 14.02.2014

5. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, entered appearance on behalf of 6th respondent –temple and filed counter-affidavit. The stand of the respondent-temple is that the temple owns Ac.528.92 cents of land in various survey numbers including the land to an extent of Ac.4.64 cents in Sy.No.91 of Harischandrapuram village. This extent of land is classified as ‘Adyapaka Service’. Various extents of land is earmarked for various services for the temple, such as, Bhajantri, Kumba Dance, decoration, Chamara Kainkaryam etc. This piece of land was given in view of rendering of ‘Adyapaka Service’ to the ancestors of the petitioner. If service is not rendered, the person cannot continue to enjoy the property. It being a service inam and as petitioner is not rendering the service, he cannot be allowed to continue in possession of the property. Land was never permanently granted to the ancestors of the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner and the temple is taking steps for recovery of possession from the encroachers by filing appropriate application under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act, 1987’).

6. Learned standing counsel further contended that respondent-temple is a public institution as per Section 6(c) of the Act, 1966. The property in issue is included in the property register maintained under Section 38 of the Act 17/66 (corresponding provision is Section 43 of Act, 1987). The reg