P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri M.A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (TG) for respondents 1 to 3, Sri M.A. Mujeeb, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri K. Jamali for respondent No. 5. Petitioners claim to be lawful owners and in possession of portion of house property, details of which are mentioned in Paragraph 2 of affidavit filed in support of writ petition. In Paragraph 3 of affidavit, petitioners traced the flow of title. According to petitioners, on 26.9.2016, they have applied for building permission to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, building permission was granted and they are undertaking construction of building as per permission granted. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge deed of cancellation of previously registered deed of conveyance executed by their vendor executed by Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board and registered by the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

2. Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that unilateral cancellation is illegal, contrary to Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of A.P. Registration Rules, 1960; law laid down by Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 15 SCC 207 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Gaddam Laxmaiah and others v. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps and others, 2018 (1) ALD 532 (DB) : 2017 (4) ALT 213.

3. By referring to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 learned Counsel further contended that Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board alone is competent to notify list of Wakf properties and to take decisions affecting Wakf properties. The Chief Executive Officer is not authorized to communicate the Registration Department list of Wakf properties. According to learned Counsel, Chief Executive Officer can only exercise powers as per directions of the Board and cannot independently act. According to learned Counsel, there was no direction by the Board to notify the subject properties as Wakf properties and to prohibit registration. Therefore, based on alleged letter written by Chief Executive Officer, the registering authority cannot treat subject property as Wakf property and entertain cancellation deed unilaterally presented by the Chief Executive Officer.

4. New Chapter-XXXIII was incorporated by way of amendment to the Registration Rules. Rule 239-B of Rules mandate Wakf Board to maintain a Register of Auqaf containing particulars of Wakf properties and the Board should forward details of properties entered into the register to concerned Land Revenue Office and concerned Land Record Office should make necessary entries in the land record and communicate within a period of six months from the date of registration of Wakf property, its objections to the Board. The Chief Executive Officer has no role under Rule 239-B. Thus, according to Rule 243 of Registration Rules, 'only authority competent to execute a document' would mean the 'Board' and that Rule 243 should be read inconsonance with Rule 239-B and in terms thereof, the Chief Executive Officer is not competent to execute cancellation deed.

5. He would further submit that principles of natural justice are violated inasmuch as petitioner was not put on notice before registering unilateral cancellation of duly registered deed of conveyance and, therefore, decision of registering authority to entertain deed of cancellation presented by the Chief Executive Officer and registering it is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In support of said contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on decision in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2017 (2) ALD 144 (SC) : (2016) 10 SCC 767 and Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2017 (4) ALD 12 : 2017 (3) ALT 420.

6. According to learned Counsel, Section 51 of Wakf Act, initially covered the various issues concerning Wakf property, such as, gift, sal