Judgment : The petitioners purchased different extents of land totalling to Ac.26.25 guntas in Sy.Nos.302 and part of 303 of Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. With an intention to develop the land and to put it to residential and other related purposes, the petitioners applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, West and South, to accord permission to convert its use, to one of non-agricultural purposes. They paid a sum of Rs.1,06,50,000/-towards the stipulated fee. Permission was accorded vide proceedings dated 22-08-2007. Necessary approval is also said to have been accorded by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and a clearance by the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority. The land was divided into plots and necessary deeds of transfer, in respect of places covered by roads and common areas in the lay-out, were executed in favour of the concerned local authorities. About 25 plots out of the lay-out were sold between April and November 2008. A sale deed dated 06-04-2009 executed in favour of one of the prospective purchasers of the petitioners was presented for registration before the 1st respondent. The document was kept pending, by assigning No.P-137/2009. Two days thereafter, the 1st respondent made an endorsement on 08-04-2009 to the effect that the document cannot be registered, in view of the information received from the A.P. Wakf Board, the 2nd respondent herein, to the effect that the land belongs to them. Obviously, he was applying the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, introduced through A.P. Act 19 of 2007. Hence this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the claim of the 2nd respondent that the land in Sy.Nos.302 and part of 303 of Mamidipally Village, belongs to them is untenable in law. It is pleaded that the land was covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Inams Act’), and that their predecessors in title were granted Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) by the authorities under the said enactment. It is also stated that the notification dated 09-02-1989, published by the Government, under the Wakf Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Wakf Act’), in relation to the lands in Sy.Nos.302 and 303 of Mamidipally Village is contrary to the provisions of that Act. It is also stated that the notification dated 09-02-1989, published by the Government, under the Wakf Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Wakf Act’), in relation to the lands in Sy.Nos.302 and 303 of Mamidipally Village is contrary to the provisions of that Act. According to the petitioners, no survey as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act was conducted, much less, the petitioners or their predecessors in title were put on notice. They place reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in B.GowraReddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 2002 A.P 313 ), which, in turn, was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. The principal contest to the writ petition is by the 2nd respondent. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed, stating that the land in Sy.Nos.299 to 306 of Mamidipally Village was held by a Wakf institution, and notification in respect of the said properties was published on 09-02-1989. According to them, survey in respect of the land was conducted in the year 1960, but due to lack of proper infrastructure and funds, notification could not be made, soon thereafter. It is further stated that the publication of notification is only a formal step, and once a property is held by a wakf institution, it remains so, till a valid transfer in accordance with law, takes place. They have also raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, stating that the only remedy available to the petitioners was the one, to institute proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal, and that even for such a remedy, the limitation stipulated under the Wakf Act had expired. Sri K. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the predecessors in title of the petitioners were granted ORCs in the year 1980, after issuing notice to the effected parties and conducting enquiry, and that the 2nd respondent or any institution, on its behalf, did not submit any claim at all. He contends that, with the issuance of ORC, the recipient thereof gets absolute right and a notification issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent, almost a decade thereafter does not have any bearing upon the rights, that are derived from the ORC. He contends that, with the issuance of ORC, the recipient thereof gets absolute right and a notification issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent, almost a decade thereafter does not have any bearing upon the rights, that are derived from the ORC. He submits that in case the 2nd respondent felt that the ORC ought not to have been issued in respect of the land, it was supposed to avail the remedies under the said enactment, but no steps were taken in that direction. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Wakf Act prescribed a detailed procedure to be followed, whenever a notification under Section 4 thereof was to be issued, and that even according to the respondents, such a procedure was not followed. He submits that conducting of survey before publication of notification is an important step and any notification must be preceded by the contemporary survey and examination of the claims of the persons interested in the land. He contends that a survey conducted in the year 1960, can, by no stretch of imagination, constitute the basis for publication of notification in the year 1989. He submits that the facts of the present case are similar to those, in B.GowraReddy’s case (supra). Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri M.A. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that the writ petitioners cannot assail the implementation of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as long as the land in question is covered by a notification issued under the Wakf Act. They contend that limitation to institute proceedings under the Wakf Act, vis-à-vis the notification published thereunder has expired long back. They submit that once a land is notified as a wakf, the prohibition ordained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act operates, and the 1st respondent has no option, except to refuse registration of the documents in relation thereto. Learned Counsel submit that the conducting of survey under the Wakf Act is almost a preparatory exercise and that no private individual has any right, to participate therein. It is also urged that mere delay in publication of the notification does not tell upon its legality. The A.P. State Legislature intended to prohibit registration of documents owned by the Government and accordingly introduced Section 22-A of the Registration Act, in the year 2004. It is also urged that mere delay in publication of the notification does not tell upon its legality. The A.P. State Legislature intended to prohibit registration of documents owned by the Government and accordingly introduced Section 22-A of the Registration Act, in the year 2004. The said provision contemplated publication of a notification in the gazette, enlisting the survey numbers, or other particulars of the lands, as regards which, prohibition was to operate. That provision was challenged in a batch of writ petitions. This Court has set aside the same following the judgment of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, another provision with the same number, but different text was introduced through A.P. Act, 19 of 2007. The provision reads; “Sec.22-A: Prohibition of Registration of certain documents:- (1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:-- (a) documents relating to transfer of immovable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government; (b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immovable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so; (c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immovable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so. (d) Agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; (e) Any documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect these interests. (2) For the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1), the State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed. (1) xxx (2) xxx” A perusal of this discloses that the prohibition would apply not only in respect of the documents pertaining to the lands owned by the State or Central Governments, but also those, held by religious institutions, such as charitable endowment institutions and the wakfs. It is only in respect of the properties covered by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1), that publication of notification is required under sub-section (2). Mere existence of information pertaining to the properties covered by Clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) is sufficient, for a Registrar, to refuse registration of documents, pertaining to such properties. In the instant case, the registration of document, submitted by the petitioners, is refused on the ground that it is in relation to wakf property. Admittedly, there existed a notification dated 09-02-1989, under the Wakf Act 1954, as regards the said property. If the matter were to have been as simple as that, no exception can be taken to the refusal of registration. However, it is not so. The land in Sy.Nos.302 and part of 303 of Mamidipally Village was covered by the provisions of the Inams Act. By operation of that Act, a land notified as ‘inam’ straightaway vests in the Government, and such of the persons, who are in possession of the same, for the period stipulated thereunder, are entitled to be granted ORC. The Revenue Divisional Officer is conferred with the power to issue such certificates, after conducting enquiry under Section 8 of that Act. In the year 1980, the persons who are in occupation of the inam land in Mamidipally Village, submitted applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of ORCs. Enquiry as stipulated under that Act was conducted and ORCs were issued. Thereby, absolute rights, vis-à-vis the land are conferred upon them. It is thereafter, that a notification was issued under the Wakf Act, 1954, on 09-02-1989. With the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which is similar to the provisions under the Wakf Act, 1995, serious consequences as regards ownership flow. Thereby, absolute rights, vis-à-vis the land are conferred upon them. It is thereafter, that a notification was issued under the Wakf Act, 1954, on 09-02-1989. With the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which is similar to the provisions under the Wakf Act, 1995, serious consequences as regards ownership flow. For all practical purposes, the rights, if any, exercised by third parties over such land, stand extinguished, once a notification is issued. That is why a remedy is provided for under that Act itself, to seek the relief vis-à-vis the notifications. Three questions assume significance in this behalf: viz., a) whether a notification under the Wakf Act, 1954, shall have the effect of extinguishing the rights determined under another enactment; b) whether the notification dated 09-02-1989 under the Wakf Act issued in respect of the land in Mamidipally Village can be treated as valid; and c) whether the starting point for computation of limitation for institution of proceedings to challenge the notification under the Wakf Act by third parties would be the date of notification. It has already been mentioned that the predecessors in title of the petitioners were granted ORCs in the year 1980 by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. The Inams Act has its origin to the agrarian reforms, that have been introduced in the early 1950’s. Constitutional Acts have to be amended to save laws, that were enacted for that purpose. The typical feature of the Inams Act is that, with its coming into force, the lands covered by it, vest, as a first step, in the Government. Certain rights are conferred upon the persons, who are in enjoyment of the property on the notified date. Once an ORC is issued, the person becomes virtually an absolute owner. Whatever be the effect of the publication of notification under the Wakf Act, it does not have the effect of erasing the rights, that were conferred upon a citizen under the Inams Act. There is nothing in the Wakf Act, which adds overriding power to a notification issued under it, vis-à-vis the rights conferred under a different statute. Further, the publication of a notification under the Wakf Act is only a step to add statutory flavour to the rights, which a wakf institution is supposed to be having already. By itself, the notification does not bring about any changes as to ownership. Further, the publication of a notification under the Wakf Act is only a step to add statutory flavour to the rights, which a wakf institution is supposed to be having already. By itself, the notification does not bring about any changes as to ownership. That is the reason behind the detailed exercise, which is required to be undertaken, before the notification is published. This includes conducting of survey, where, the nature of rights held by the wakf institution, as on the date, are ascertained. The notification is declaratory in its nature, than being constitutive of independent legal regime. If, in the course of enquiry or survey, it is found that a piece of land is enjoyed by a third party and not by wakf institution, it may not be feasible to issue notification. In such an event, the concerned wakf may assert its rights by instituting proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal. Therefore, the mere publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, does not have the effect of extinguishing the rights, that are conferred on third parties under a statute, earlier to it. The petitioners submit that the notification dated 09-02-1989, published in respect of Sy.Nos.302 and part of 303 is untenable and defective. Their principal contention is about the non-conducting of survey and enquiry. Section 4 of the Wakf Act, be it, 1954 or 1995 reads; “Sec.4: Preliminary survey of wakfs:-- (1)The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for the State a Survey Commissioner of Wakfs and as may Additional or Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs as may be necessary for the purpose of making a survey of wakfs existing in the State at the date of the commencement of this Act. (2) All Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs shall perform their functions under this Act under the general supervision and control of the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs. (2) All Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs shall perform their functions under this Act under the general supervision and control of the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, submit his report, in respect of wakfs existing at the date of the commencement of this Act in the State or any part thereof, to the State Government containing the following particulars, namely:- (a) the number of wakfs in the State showing the Shia Wakfs and Suni wakfs separately; (b) the nature and objects of each wakf; (c) the gross income of the property comprised in each wakf; (d) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes payable in respect of each wakf; (e) the expenses incurred int eh realisation of the income and the pay or other remuneration of the mutawalli of each wakf; and (f) such other particulars relating to each wakf as may be prescribed. (4) The Survey Commissioner shall, while making any inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and examining any witness; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record from any court or office; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness or accounts; (e) making any local inspection or local investigation; (f) such other matters as may be prescribed. (5) If, during any such inquiry, any dispute arises as to whether a particular wakf is a Shia wakf or Suni wakf and there are clear indications in the deed of wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such deed. (5) If, during any such inquiry, any dispute arises as to whether a particular wakf is a Shia wakf or Suni wakf and there are clear indications in the deed of wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such deed. (6) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct the Survey Commissioner to make a second or subsequent survey of wakf properties in the State and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) shall apply to such survey as they apply to a survey directed under sub-section (1): Provided that no such second or subsequent survey shall be made until the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date on which the report in relation to the immediately previous survey was submitted under sub-section (3).” From this, it is clear that a detailed survey is required to be conducted. The publication of the notification must be soon, though not immediate, after the survey. The reason is that, any events, that occur between the date of survey, and date of publication of the notification would render the very exercise futile. If any substantial development takes place between the two events, the survey conducted earlier can not at all constitute the basis for publication. Even otherwise, unreasonable delay would defeat the very objective, underlying the provision. It was way back in the year 1960, that the survey in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.299 to 306 of Mamidipally Village was conducted under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954. The publication was made only in the year 1989. In the period of three decades, that has intervened, several legislative and administrative changes have taken place. The Inams Act came into force, and in the course of its implementation, the ORCs were granted in respect of the lands. Had any survey been conducted immediately preceding the publication in the year 1989, the fact that the petitioners or their predecessors in title had in possession and enjoyment of the property, as absolute owners or were issued ORCs; could have been noticed, and issuance of notification would certainly have become doubtful. By no stretch of imagination, the survey conducted in the year 1960 can be said to be the basis for publication of a notification in the year 1989. By no stretch of imagination, the survey conducted in the year 1960 can be said to be the basis for publication of a notification in the year 1989. Therefore, the notification dated 09-02-1989 cannot be said to be inconformity with the provisions of the Wakf Act. This Court, in B.GowraReddy’s case (supra) dealt with the manner in which the notification under challenge herein was issued, and expressed the view that it does not accord with law. The principle laid down therein covers the facts of this case also. The third contention arises on account of the objection raised by the 2nd respondent, to the effect that the petitioners cannot challenge the notification at this stage, when its right to file a suit under the Act is barred. The question as to whether the limitation and other aspects covered by Sections 4 to 6 of the Wakf Act would apply in relation to proceedings initiated by third parties also, was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (1979) 2 SCC 468 ). It was held that the notification would become final and conclusive as between the Wakf Board and the Mutawalli, on the one hand, and the persons interested in the wakf, on the other, but not against the persons, who are not interested in the wakf. The petitioners herein did not claim any interest in the wakf concerned. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. The miscellaneous petition filed in this Writ Petition also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.