ORDER :

1. These writ petitions are filed questioning the inclusion of land of three different extents in Sy.No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Village of Kurnool under Section 22-A (1) (c) of Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Counters are filed in two matters and with the consent of all the learned counsels, as common questions of fact and law arise; as the prayer in all the matters relates to the land in Sy.No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Village, all the three writ petitions were taken up for hearing.

3. The petitioner in WP.No.16911 of 2021 is Sai Saran Plots Owners Welfare Association and petitioner Nos.2 to 130 claim to be the owners of individual plots of land. The first petitioner-association has filed the writ and is espousing the cause of the other owners. The essential contesting respondents are the District Registrar and the State Waqf Board.

4. In WP.No.17177 of 2021, the petitioner is a trust. The respondents are the same. The petitioners are the owners of Ac.6.22 cents in Sy.No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Village.

5. In WP.No.17276 of 2021, the petitioners are claiming to be the owners of various extents of land in total Ac.7.47 cents in Sy.No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Village. When they want to register their documents and the sub-registrar was asked to give a market value certificate, they noticed that the property is included in the 22-A list of prohibited properties. Sri Gudapati Venkateswarlu, learned counsel argued for the petitioners. Government Pleader for Revenue and Registration Department argued for the respondents and the standing counsel Shaik Karimullah argued for the Waqf Board.

6. The crux of the submission of G.Venkateswarlu learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Waqf Board cannot claim any right over the property. It is submitted that on the basis of a letter dated 16.02.2016, issued by the Waqf Board, the entire property is included in the prohibited list. Learned counsel submits that the Division Bench order dated 20.06.2011 passed in WP.No.989 of 2007 is a binding precedent and it is pertaining to the entire land in Sy.No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Villag. Learned counsel points out that after a comprehensive enquiry, the Division Bench of the high Court clearly held that the inclusion of Ac.59.90 cents of land in Sy.No.19 in Dinnedevarapadu Village as Waqf property is incorrect. The Division Bench also considered the judgment in O.S.No.43 of 1969 dated 27.10.1969, wherein the suit filed by the Waqf Board for this land was dismissed. Learned counsel argues that the order of the Division Bench is a comprehensive order which has discussed the entire gamut of issues that are raised and thereafter came to a conclusion that the Waqf Board cannot claim any rights in this property. He also points out that in the conclusion, the Division Bench directed the Waqf Board to issue a fresh notification or to file a civil suit for declaration. He points out that till date neither a fresh notification was given, nor a civil suit was filed. Learned counsel also relies upon the order dated 27.10.1969 in O.S.No.43 of 1969 of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, which also pertains to the land in Sy.No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Village. The first issue framed in the suit is about the classification of the suit property as Waqf Property. Counsel points out that after considering the evidence the suit was dismissed. With regard to issue No.1 also, the learned counsel points out that after considering the evidence, the Court came to a conclusion that issue No.1 is held against the plaintiffs. Learned counsel also relies upon subsequent order which was passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No.29663 of 2012 holding that inclusion of the land under Section 22-A of the Act is not correct. The letter dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Waqf Board also confirms that no appeal was filed against the Division Bench order. Therefore, learned counsel submits that all the three writ petitions are to be allowed granting the prayers, as t