JUDGMENT

A. Rajasheker Reddy, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents i.e., the Registering authorities in refusing to receive and register the Sale/Gift/Mortgage/Release/Conveyance Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of House Plot No.51 admeasuring 222.22 sq. yards in Sy.No.44/5/A, Maqtha Mahaboobpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that the survey number where the petitioner's property is situated is notified as prohibited property under Section 22-A of Registration Act, vide Gazette Notification dated 26.09.2013, is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also in violation of the Registration Act, 1908, besides in violation of the principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the respondent Registering authorities to receive and register the Sale/Gift/Mortgage/Release/Conveyance Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of House Plot No.51 admeasuring 222.22 sq. yards in Sy.No.44/5/A, Maqtha Mahaboobpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The issue of inclusion of properties in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act') was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in VINJAMURI RAJAGOPALA CHARY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2015 3 ALT 96 giving several directions. Insofar as this Writ Petition is concerned, paragraph No.25.3 of the said judgment is relevant whereunder the District Collector is vested power to notify the District Registrar/Registering Authority that the subject properties are Government properties and no deed of conveyance can be entertained.

4. In the case on hand, what was issued by the District Collector was only a Notification calling for objections and so far he has not exercised the power vested under Section 22-A of the Act. The issue of inclusion of properties in the prohibited list, not accepting the documents for registration and the scope of Section 22-A of the Act were elaborately considered by the Full Bench of this Court.

5. It is also appropriate to note at this stage that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court was carried to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4019 of 2018 and batch. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners therein and any other aggrieved person to challenge the validity of Section 22-A of the Act and directed the High Court to decide the said validity. The Supreme Court has also granted interim direction of registration of deeds of conveyance, but such registration was directed to be treated as provisional subject to the result of the writ petitions now pending before the High Court and the parties should not claim any additional equity.

6. A similar Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 was considered in W.P.No.19069 of 2014. Paragraph No.12 of the judgment dated 25.08.2014 reads as under:

"Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, it is open to the registering authority to refuse to register the deeds presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of deed of conveyance does not confer title to the property and it is made clear that this order does not preclude the Government to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. No costs."

7. Following the said decision, several other Writ Petitions were disposed of.

8. In view thereof, following the earlier decision in W.P.No.19069 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014, this Writ Petition is also disposed