ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. One Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah and Korrapati Venkat Rao filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of the fifth respondent in refusing to receive and process the sale deed presented by this petitioners pertaining to the property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds situated in D. No. 15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to receive and process the Sale Deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the above property.

2. The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, originally, property in an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in 15/1C and Ac.0-05 cents in 15/2C was purchased by one Syed Adam in auction proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide R.C. No. M2/56940/1990 dated 04.05.1992 from the Endowments Department. Accordingly, the Executive Officer, Sri Veeranjaneya Swami Temple, Vadavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town & Mandal, Guntur District executed registered Sale Deed Document No. 2079/1992 dated 10.06.1992 in favour of Syed Adam. One Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao purchased the property from Syed Adam by way of registered Sale Deed Document No. 3179/1999 dated 31.07.1999 and the present petitioners jointly purchased property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds situated in Sy. No. 15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District from Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao by way of Registered Sale Deed Document No. 1658/2009 dated 16.04.2009. Thus, the petitioners became owners of property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds situated in Sy. No. 15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District by purchase from the original owner - Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao.

3. An auction was conducted on 08.06.1992 and possession of the property was also handed over in favour of the auction purchasers. Hence, it is evident that the subject property is not an Endowment property and it ceased to be endowment property on sale of the property in the public auction by the sixth respondent after obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Endowments and it became purely a private property and not governed by the provisions of Act 30 of 1987.

4. It is contended that, as the petitioners are suffering from old age ailments and without any source of income, they intended to sell the subject property to Sri Shaik Ahamed Shareef who is the resident of Sattenapalli town and the petitioners entered into agreement of sale and received Rs. 5,00,000/- as advance. The petitioners approached the fifth respondent - Sub-Registrar, Sattenapalli for registration of sale deed being presented by them in the month of February, 2021. But, it was informed by the officials of Sub-Registrar's office that the subject property is falling in Sy. No. 15/1C and the same is included in the list of prohibited properties and furnished a copy of the list of prohibited properties. On verification of the same, the land in Sy. No. 15/1C is included in the list of prohibited properties.

5. It is specifically contended that, when the property is not an Endowment property and the inclusion of petitioners property in the list of prohibited properties is contrary to law. moreover, the petitioners purchased the property after going through the title and in fact the Endowments Department itself sold the property to the petitioners vendor's vendor i.e. Syed Adam and others who purchased the property in the public auction after following necessary procedure prescribed under Act 30 of 1987, thereby, the very inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties and refusal to receive and process the Sale Deed presented by the petitioners before the fifth respondent is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be set-aside.

6. Respondent No. 5 - Sub-Registrar, Sattenapalli, Guntur District filed