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. 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 independent counter affidavit, admitted that the second respondent sent the list of Endowments properties on the recommendation of the third respondent to the Registering Officer, while narrating the procedure of registration and prohibition of registration of certain documents under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. 6. Respondent No. 5 - Sub-Registrar, Sattenapalli, Guntur District filed independent counter affidavit, admitted that the second respondent sent the list of Endowments properties on the recommendation of the third respondent to the Registering Officer, while narrating the procedure of registration and prohibition of registration of certain documents under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2016 (1) ALT 550 and letter of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada vide letter Rc. No. M2/9577/2016 dated 08.06.2016 furnishing list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, wherein, as per the said list, land in Sy. No. 15/1C to an extent of Ac.0-37 cents is classified as Endowment property that belongs to Sri Veeranjaneyaswamy Temple. 7. Respondent No. 5 submitted that, the land in question is prohibited from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and relied on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 343 of 2015 & batch dated 23.12.2015, wherein, it was made clear that, if a relevant property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, the aggrieved party may approach concerned authority to delete his lands from the list. 8. Respondent No. 5 being a registering authority, is bound by the list furnished by the second respondent in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and thereby, refusal to receive and register the document, transferring the property included in the list of prohibited properties from registration is illegal and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Respondent No. 6 - Executive Officer, Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town, filed separate counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that, the sixth respondent Temple is notified under Section 6-C of the Endowments Act i.e. Act 30 of 1987 and it is under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. The Temple is the absolute owner of the landed properties in total extent of Ac.9-00 cents in Sy. No. 15 of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District as per the approved property Register under Section 25 of Endowments Act on 18.06.1956. As per the approved property Register of the temple, approved vide R. Dis. The Temple is the absolute owner of the landed properties in total extent of Ac.9-00 cents in Sy. No. 15 of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District as per the approved property Register under Section 25 of Endowments Act on 18.06.1956. As per the approved property Register of the temple, approved vide R. Dis. No. A3/740/2003 dated 19.03.2003 under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, the temple is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.8-50 cents in Sy. No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, which was endowed to the temple for the purpose of maintenance of the temple. 10. It is submitted that out of the said land an extent of Ac. 5-67 Cents was sold to APSRTC for establishment of Sattenapalli Bus Station and an extent of Ac. 0-60 cents was sold for establishment of Microwave Repeater Station to the Telecom Department as per orders in Rc.No.: M2/46139/84, Dated: 28-01-1985 and further an extent of Ac. 0-50 cents was sold to Postal Department for establishment of Sattenapalli Post Office Main Branch vide orders in Rc.No.: M2/56940/90-1, Dated: 21-02-2002 and further an extent of Ac.1-00 Cents was sold in public auction of sale vide orders in Rc.No.: M2/56940/90, Dated 04-05-1992 and thus a total extent of Ac. 7-77 cents was sold and accordingly the temple remained with an extent of Ac.1-23 cents in the said Survey No. 15/10 still remains as Endowments land in the said Survey No: 15/1C. But the same was not identified on ground. 11. It is submitted that 3rd respondent i.e., The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur submitted the particulars of the landed property belongs to various Endowment Institutions to the Sub-Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Sattenapalli, Guntur District under Section 22(A)(1)(C) of Registration Act, 1908 to prohibit transfer of those properties by execution of unregistered documents. In the said list an extent of land of Ac.0-37 cents in Survey No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District belongs Sri Veeranjaneya Swami Temple, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town and Mandal, Guntur District was also included in the said list. 12. It is submitted that no sub division took place as regards the said land of Ac.0-37 Cents in Survey No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District. Hence the entire land was included in the said list of Prohibited properties. 12. It is submitted that no sub division took place as regards the said land of Ac.0-37 Cents in Survey No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District. Hence the entire land was included in the said list of Prohibited properties. If the petitioners purchased the property, it is for them to approach the Revenue Authorities for Sub division of the said land and for Demarcation of the land purchased by them by following due procedure for getting preparation of the necessary documents like Sub Division survey report, FMB etc., so as to demarcate and decide the said land of Ac. 1-00 cents from the total extent of the land and to mutate the Revenue Records, but no such procedure is resorted to by the respondents. Hence, entire property in Sy. No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District is included in the list of prohibited properties and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 13. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar would contend that, when once the property is sold after obtaining necessary permission, in compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 80 of Act 30 of 1987, the property ceased to be Endowment property and became private property, thereby, inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties is illegal and consequently, refusing to receive and register the document presented for sale of the property by Respondent No. 5 is a grave illegality and it is nothing but depriving these petitioners from dealing with the property in violation of Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India, thereby, inclusion of the property of these petitioners in the list of prohibited properties from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, be declared as illegal, while directing the respondent to delete the property from the list of prohibited properties and further direct the fifth respondent - Sub-Registrar to receive and register the sale deed being presented by these petitioners in accordance with law. 14. 14. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments supported the action of the respondents, but fairly stated that, the balance land of the temple could not be identified on ground and the entire property was included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the petitioners are at liberty to take steps for sub-division of the property purchased by him; on such sub-division, necessary steps will be taken for sub-division of the property purchased by them and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration simply contended that, as the property is included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, the fifth respondent is justified in rejecting the registration of the document and thereby, did commit no illegality and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 16. In view of the factual matrix, as narrated above, there is no dispute about the sale of Ac.1-00 cents of land in Sy. No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town & Mandal, Guntur District in the public auction vide proceedings of the Commissioner in Rc.No.: M2/56940/90, Dated 04-05-1992. However, the sixth respondent in Paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit, admitted that, the sixth respondent sold land of an extent of Ac. 7-77 cents out of Ac.8-50 cents in Sy. No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal. 17. One Syed Adam and others became highest bidders in the auction held on 08.06.1992 and the Executive Officer of Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple executed registered sale deed in favour of the highest bidders as stated above and delivered possession of the property, who in turn sold the same to one Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao, i.e. vendor of these petitioners, from whom these petitioners purchased property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds in Sy. No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal. When the property belonging to the sixth respondent Temple is sold after obtaining permission from the Commissioner, Endowments Department in compliance of Section 80 of Act 30 of 1987 and the Executive Officer of Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple executed registered sale deed vide Document No. 2079/1992 dated 10.06.1992. Later, several transactions took place, the property ceased to be the endowments property and vested on the private individual, on the date of execution of registration of the sale deed by the then Executive Officer of the sixth respondent - Temple. Later, several transactions took place, the property ceased to be the endowments property and vested on the private individual, on the date of execution of registration of the sale deed by the then Executive Officer of the sixth respondent - Temple. Therefore, the petitioners purchased the property in public auction held by the sixth respondent with the permission obtained from the second respondent and execution of sale deed in favour of the highest bidders is an admitted fact. When once the property is sold and executed registered sale deed, the sixth respondent cannot claim any right over the property since the purchaser became absolute owner with absolute rights. Merely because, Ac.0-35 cents of land could not be identified on ground after conducting survey, the property which was sold in the public auction within the boundaries cannot be included in the list of prohibited properties of Endowments under Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act, 1908. 18. The sale deed executed by the Executive Officer of the sixth respondent Temple is for an extent of Ac.0-50 cents and the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide Rc.No.: M2/56940/90, Dated 04-05-1992 shows that land of an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in Sy. No. 15/1C was executed in favour of Sri Gadde Sambaiah, s/o Venkatappaih and six others, who is the highest bidder. The Executive Officer of the Trust Board of the subject temple is directed to guard the sale deed registered in the names of the highest bidders and to be executed at the expenses of the purchaser after collecting the entire bid amount. The sale proceeds should be invested in long term deposit in Syndicate Bank, Sattenapalli Town in the joint account of the Executive Officer of the subject temple and the Commissioner, Endowments Department and should be entered in the register of investments. Thereafter, the property delivered to the vendor's vendor of the petitioners and delivery receipt is also placed on record to prove that the property was delivered. Thereafter, the property delivered to the vendor's vendor of the petitioners and delivery receipt is also placed on record to prove that the property was delivered. Thus, the petitioners being the purchaser from Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao became owner of the property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds and inclusion of this property in the list of prohibited properties by the second respondent at the instance of the third respondent prohibiting transfer of property is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India, since the petitioners are deprived of their right to deal with the property for their necessities. 19. The document dated 31.07.1999 executed by Syed Adam s/o Syed Ahmed in favour of vendor of this petitioners i.e. Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao for an extent of 186 sq.yds = 156.24 sq.mts of open site is within the following four boundaries. East : Pathway of 21.06 feet width South : property sold to Kancheti Venkateshwar Rao West : Government property North : Property sold to Poonati Chandrasekhar Rao 20. When the property is identified on ground with boundaries and survey numbers, question of again conducting sub-division for identification of the property of these petitioners does not arise. Hence, inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act on the ground that Ac.0-37 cents of land belonging to temple could not be identified on ground is a serious illegality committed by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 at the instance of sixth respondent. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to delete the property from the list of prohibited properties communicated to the Sub-Registrar in compliance of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act within four weeks from today and communicate the same to Respondent No. 5. On receipt of communication, the Respondent No. 4/District Registrar is directed to receive, process and register the document presented for registration pertaining to the land in Sy. No. 15/1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, subject to complying the legal formalities under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908. In case, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 did not delete the property from the list of prohibited properties, communicated to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 within one month, Respondent No. 5 is directed to register the document on its presentation for sale of the property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds situated in Sy. In case, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 did not delete the property from the list of prohibited properties, communicated to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 within one month, Respondent No. 5 is directed to register the document on its presentation for sale of the property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds situated in Sy. No. 15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, notwithstanding the communication sent to the registering authority by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. 21. In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in inclusion of the petitioners property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds situated in Sy. No. 15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, in the list of prohibited properties and refusing to receive and process the sale deed presented by the petitioners is declared as illegal and arbitrary; consequently directed delete the property from the list of prohibited properties communicated to the Sub-Registrar in compliance of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act within four weeks from today and communicate the same to Respondent No. 5. On receipt of communication, the Respondent No. 5-Sub-Registrar is directed to receive, process and register the document presented for registration pertaining to the land in Sy. No. 15/1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, subject to complying the legal formalities under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908. In case, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 did not delete the property from the list of prohibited properties, communicated to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 within one month, Respondent No. 5 is directed to register the document on its presentation for sale of the property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds situated in Sy. No. 15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, notwithstanding the communication sent to the registering authority by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. 22. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.