Court reinforced the principle that administrative refusals to register property must align with current legal standings, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. As the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. For reference, the facts in W.P.No.21767 of 2021 are being taken up.

3. W.P.No.21767 of 2021 is filed with the following prayer:

“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Intimation of Refusal through Memo No.60/2021 issued by the 3rd respondent refusing to register document No.P-11/2021 i.e., sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of land bearing plot No.95/P & 96/P admeasuring 254 sq. yards under sy.Nos.299/P, 300/P & 301/P part and parcel of Vision Valley, situated at Mamidipally Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the basis of the AP Gazette Notification No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to provisions of Registration Act, 1908, and set aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents to register and release the document No.P-11/2021 i.e. sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of subject land, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in circumstances of case.”

4. Heard Mr. E. Kalyan Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.21767 of 2021 and 33662 of 2022, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board.

5. Petitioner claims to be a lawful owner and possessor of land bearing Plot Nos.95/P and 96/P admeasuring 254 sq. yards in Survey Nos.299/P, 300/P and 301/P, which are part and parcel of Vision Valley, situated at Mamidipally Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner claims that he purchased the said extents of land by registered sale deed bearing No.759 of 2010, dated 26.04.2010, that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. That vendors of petitioner were pattadars and possessors of subject lands and their names were recorded as pattadars and possessors in the revenue records, they in turn entered into a development agreement-cum-general power of attorney with M/s.Sai Sakthi Projects Private Limited and layout permission was issued on 07.08.2006. The subject property was sold after obtaining permission in 2010.

6. It is submitted that due to personal necessities, when the petitioner approached respondent No.3 on 17.02.2021 for sale of land, the Sub Registrar -respondent No.3 refused to register the land vide refusal Memo No.60/2021, dated 03.03.2021 (Ex.P1, Page No.10) on the ground that the subject land was prohibited for registration under Section 22A (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is also submitted that the property was under the Gazette Notification No.6-A, dated 09.02.1989.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.5938 of 2006 and batch. By common order dated 11.02.2021, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. Order of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal vide W.A.Nos.318 of 2021 and batch. The Division Bench of this Court by common judgment dated 12.11.2021 dismissed the writ appeals. The Waqf Board carried the matter to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.4166-4175 of 2022 dismissed the appeals.

8. It is contended that these writ petitions have to meet the same fate as that of the writ petitions in the batch matters. In other words, it is contended that the writ