The prohibition of Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act would not apply to a property that was sold by a religious and charitable endowment, where the sale was later challenged before the Endowment Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

The facts relating to the present case are - Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt (for short “the Mutt”) Tirupati was the absolute owner of Ac.3.80 cents in Sy.No.396 and Ac.4.62 cents in Sy.No.435 aggregating to Ac.8.42 cents of land in Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor Mandal and District. This land was initially leased out to one M. Pachiappa Mudaliar by way of a public auction conducted on 10.09.1971 for an annual rent of Rs.1700/- for a period of six years and the same was approved by the then Commissioner, Endowments Department. Since the said M. Pachiappa Mudaliar defaulted in payment of lease amount, O.S.No.344 of 1975 was filed by the Mutt in the District Munsif Court, Chittoor, for recovery of lease amount and possession of the property. While the suit was pending disposal, Sri M. Pachiappa Mudaliar inducted the petitioner into the possession of the land by way of an unregistered agreement dated 19.12.1979. After coming into possession of the land, the petitioner obtained a fresh lease with the Mutt for a period of six years from 19.12.1979 to 18.12.1985 on an annual lease amount of Rs.4525/- and the same was approved by the Commissioner, Endowment Department, by proceedings in L.Dis.No.A2/18920/80-2, dated 22.04.1980. The petitioner is said to have paid the arrears of Rs.17,427/- against the lease amounts payable by Sri M. Pachiappa Mudaliar and this payment was also said to have been ratified by the Commissioner, Endowment Department, by proceedings dated 29.04.1980 and permission was granted to withdraw O.S.No.344 of 1975 and the same was also withdrawn by the 3rd respondent-Mutt.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to purchase the land, by way of private negotiations, and the Assistant Commissioner, who is the in-charge of the Mutt, by letter in Roc.No.226/1982-A, dated 25.03.1982 had recommended the case of the petitioner to the Commissioner, Endowment Department for purchase of the land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. After due consideration, the Commissioner Endowments, had issued proceedings in Roc.No.M2-24149/82, dated 04.05.1982 granting approval for purchase of the land under Section 74(1) of the 1966 Act. The notice under this provision was also published in the A.P. Gazette and in Andhra Prabha Daily News Paper on 08.06.1982. Thereafter, the property was sold to the petitioner under private negotiations in accordance with the stipulations in A.P. G.O.Rt.No.1427 Revenue (Endowments-III) Department dated 24.08.1982, and the proceedings of the Commissioner in Roc.No.M2/24149/82 dated 09.09.1982 and the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 14.10.1982 in W.P.M.P.No.10901 of 1982 in W.P.No.3621 of 1982 apart from the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner in-charge of the 3rd respondent-Mutt dated 25.10.1982. All these proceedings had then culminated in execution and registration of a deed of sale dated 29.10.1982 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chittoor as document No.7208/1982.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner and two others approached the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.9903 of 2015 to declare the proceedings of the 4th respondent including the property in the list under the prohibitory register under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1980, on the ground that these lands belong to the Mutt. This writ petition along with a batch of writ petitions was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Hon”ble High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 29.01.2016 with the observation that these issues were covered by the Full Bench judgment passed in W.A.No.353 of 2015 and batch dated 23.12.2015. In accordance with the directions passed in that judgment, the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the Commissioner for NOC to be issued for the subject land.

4. As the Commissioner, Endowments was not passing any orders on the representation of the petit