ORDER : 1. Writ Petition No.8704 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 1st respondent contained in Lr.In.Rc.No.L1/COE-18023 (36)/1/2021 -L SEC – ENDOWMENTS, dated 09.04.2021 addressed to the 6th respondent requesting that the lands in Sy.Nos.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District be placed in the prohibitory register under Section 22A (1) (c) of Registration Act 1908, is arbitrary, without jurisdiction and ultra-virus the provisions of the Registration Act and also contradictory to the judgment of the State Government contained in Memo dated 10.10.2019 and consequently set aside the said letter of the 1st respondent dated 09.04.2021 and direct the respondents - registration authorities i.e. Sub-Registrar, District Registrar to entertain and register the sale deeds in respect of the lands/buildings/constructions in Sy.No.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District (which may be executed and presented by the petitioners in favour of the third parties) and release the same after due registration” 2. The factual matrix in the petition is as follows: 3. Petitioner Nos.1 to 9 and petitioner No.11 are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land situated in Sy.Nos.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and the names of the petitioners are already entered in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors. Petitioner No.10 has entered into a development agreement with petitioner Nos.1 to 9 vide document No.1909 of 2017, dated 23.05.2017, No.2718 and 2719 of 2017, dated 06.06.2017 which were captioned as Development Agreement – cum - General Power of Attorney. Petitioner No.11 obtained registered sale bearing document No.1354 of 2017 deed dated 15.04.2017 from the original owners and pattadars. Thus, the petitioners have applied for grant of layout permission from Visakhpatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short “VMRDA”) and layout has been approved vide layout No.30/2019/1167/VMRDA/GPMS, dated 21.11.2019 for conversion of the land into plots and similar layout has been granted to petitioner No..1 vide layout permit No.67 of 2018. Petitioner Nos.1 to 9 and 11 are carrying on the developmental activity in accordance with the layout sanctioned by the VMRDA. Petitioners got the land converted for non-agriculture purpose under the A.P. Conversion of Agricultural Land into Non-Agricultural Purpose Act, 2006. Petitioner Nos.1 to 9 and 11 are carrying on the developmental activity in accordance with the layout sanctioned by the VMRDA. Petitioners got the land converted for non-agriculture purpose under the A.P. Conversion of Agricultural Land into Non-Agricultural Purpose Act, 2006. As such, the petitioners are entitled to develop the land in accordance with the layout permission granted by the Urban Development Authority. 4. There was an issue with regard to the title of the land since there was a claim over the land by one Grama Devatha by name Vanamulamma Devatha. In that context, the dispute stood resolved as per the decision of the Government contained in the memo dated 10.10.2019 wherein the State Government has set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer and Joint Collector and upheld the earlier orders of the Joint Collector dated 30.07.2016 and the said decision of the state Government is not challenged in any superior forum and hence it has attained finality. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have valid title, obtained valid layout permission and conversion of land use, so that they can lawfully proceed with the development activity over the subject land in Sy.Nos.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5. While things stood thus, State issued another memo dated 03.12.2019 purporting to reopen the case which is covered by the memo dated 10.10.2019, thereupon petitioners filed W.P.No.21412 of 2019, this Court was pleased to grant interim order keeping the said memo in abeyance. 6. While so, respondent No.1 addressed a letter to respondent No.6 (District Registrar, Visakhapatnam), dated 09.04.2021 by which respondent No.1 has requested respondent No.6 to place the prohibitory properties under Section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 as regards the land in Sy.No.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhaptnam District on the ground that the said land belong to the Grama Devatha though they are not registered in the name of the said Grama Devatha. 7. The impugned letter of respondent No.1 addressed to respondent No.6 is patently illegal and contrary to the decision of the Government contained in the memo dated 10.10.2019 wherein the State Government has set aside the orders of the settlement Officer and Joint Collector and held that the earlier orders of the Joint Collector, dated 30.07.2016 is restored, since the same has attained finality. Thus, there is no basis for the impugned letter of respondent No.1 in which the subject land is stated to be belonging to the Grama Devatha i.e., Vanamulamma Ammavaru, Mamidilova village, Anandapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The right of the Grama Devatha over the subject lands stood already adjudicated in the above said government memo dated 10.10.2019 and hence there is no legal or factual basis for respondent No.6 to request the registration authorities to place the lands in Sy.No.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam in the prohibited properties list under Section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. Respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to require the registration authorities to keep any property in the prohibitory register under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. Thus, the impugned letter of respondent No.1 is patently illegal and ultra-virus the provisions of the Registration Act and also the earlier adjudication of the State Government contained in the memo dated 10.10.2019. Above all, even according to the impugned letter, the subject land was not registered in favour of the Grama Devatha. When the title to the subject land is not with the Grama Devatha, mere revenue entries does not have any legal basis to prohibit registrations of documents pertaining to the subject land. Under these circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court claimed the relief as stated supra. 8. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that the District Collector, Visakhapatnam District has directed to submit a detailed report by enclosing the orders of the Government, by stating that the Government has reopened the entire case after the orders in review petition, in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.44, 46 and 51 situated at Mamidilova Village. The concerned revenue records i.e. Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA), Adangal/Pahani copies, wherein it shows that the land is in the name of "Grama Devatha" but under occupation of Banda Nookalu, Banda Apparao, Banda Ramu, Banda Appalaraju. The concerned revenue records i.e. Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA), Adangal/Pahani copies, wherein it shows that the land is in the name of "Grama Devatha" but under occupation of Banda Nookalu, Banda Apparao, Banda Ramu, Banda Appalaraju. The Tahasildar, Anandapuram in Lr.Rc.No.205/2016/A dated 18.06.2016 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam in Lr.Rc.No.3354/2016/C, dated 21.06.2016 submitted to the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, have clearly stated that the land in Sy.No.44/1 to an extent of Ac.3.94 cents with Katha No.47 belongs to "Grama Devatha Vanamulamma" and in Adangal, "Grama Devatha Vanamulamma" was recorded as pattadar whereas the names of Balireddy Ramudu and Yoga Appanna were recorded as enjoyers; the land in Sy.No.46 to an extent of Ac. 7-04 cents with Katha No.47 belongs to "Grama Devatha Vanamulamma" and in Adangal, "Grama Devatha Vanamulamma" was recorded as pattadar whereas the names of Balireddy Satyanarayana, Pilla Sombabu, Bola Mutyalamma, Koyya Mutyam, etc. were recorded as enjoyers. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam further reported that the land in Sy.No.51 to an extent of Ac.3-54 cents was recorded in the name of "Grama Devatha" as per Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA) as pattadar whereas the names of Bonda Nookalu and others were recorded as enjoyers in the Adangals and that the MPTC and Sarpanch have reported that these lands are related to Grama Devatha. 9. The Grama Devatha is a public temple and the property is to be registered as per the Endowments Act, since the SFA, Adangals, 1-B registers clearly show that the pattadar of the above land is Grama Devatha. It can be assumed that for every village, the villagers used to perform poojas to Goddesses such as Pochamma thalli, Mankalamma thalli, Ellamma thalli, Ammavaru, Nookalamma, Pydithalli, Vanamulamma, Muthyalamma, Bangaramma, Kunchalamma, Naridithalli, etc. on a specific day/days in a specific season and at some places, constructed no temples for those Goddesses, but it is the common practice of villagers to offer their prayers to the Goddesses either by placing a stone or sticks or any other symbols and after performing that poojas/prayers, those items may be kept at some secluded places with a view to open them at the same time in the coming year. Likewise, several people of several villages offer their prayers to their deities from time immemorial. Likewise, several people of several villages offer their prayers to their deities from time immemorial. As per the record, there is no temple at the alleged place but the said land is clearly recorded in the name of Grama Devatha and that the said Village Mamidilova has Sri Mutyalamma temple, Sri Bangaramma Temple, Sri Kunchalamma Temple and Sri Maridithalli temple (only tree exists), which shows that the villagers have age old practice to offer their prayers to the said deities from time immemorial, as such the same was recorded initially in the year 1956 and it has been continued to be reflected in the revenue records as the land belongs to Grama Devatha. 10. The Joint Collector vide orders dated 30.07.2016, after obtaining the reports of the Tahasildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, had passed orders that "after examination of proposals submitted by Tahasildar, Anandapuram and Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam basing on the records, permission is accorded for incorporation of farmer names in revenue records duly deleting the entry of Vanumulamma Devata in Sy.Nos.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova village of Anandapuram Plandal, Visakhapatnam District”. Moreover, the Tahsildar, Anandapuram and the RDO, Visakhapatnam have clearly mentioned that according to SFA, Grama Devatha name was recorded, but no such Grama Devatha temple is in existence in the village, only the temple of Mutyalamma is existing. But it is clearly mentioned that the MPTC and Sarpanch have reported that these lands are related to Grama Devatha. In all the revenue records, it is simply stated that the land belong to Grama Devatha. In that order, no where it is mentioned that the Endowments Department was put on notice, but it is mentioned that the RDO, Visakhapatnam further submitted that as could be verified with the details of Endowments lands, which were notified under Section 43 of Endowments Act, the said land was not found place. Admittedly, the said land is neither notified nor registered, but the name of Grama Devatha was clearly recorded as pattadar in the SFA, Adangals and 1-B registers of the revenue records, which is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the said land belongs to Grama Devatha. Further, as per the report of the Inspector of Endowments, no notice was served on the endowments department to know the details of the land. Further, as per the report of the Inspector of Endowments, no notice was served on the endowments department to know the details of the land. Moreover, Section 1(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ( for short “Act 30 of 1987”), says that "all public Charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954", as such it is established law that the properties of the institution may be or may not be registered, but the Endowments Department has to exercise its control over those properties, in the interest of the temples and general public. Therefore, the “Grama Devatha” is not registered under the provisions of Act 30 of 1987, still, the department will have control over the temple. 11. It is further contended that as per the report of the Tahsildar, Anandapuram dated 18.06.2016, the land in Sy.No.44/1 is Ac.3-94 cents, stood in the name of Grama Devatha Vanumulamma as pattadar and in the enjoyers column, the names of Balireddy Ramudu, Yoga Appanna were recorded; in Sy.No.46 the land is Ac.7-04 cents, stood in the name of Grama Devatha Vanumulamma as pattadar and in the enjoyers column, the names of Balireddy Suryanarayana, Pilla Sombabu, Bota Mutyalamma, Koyya Mutyam, etc. were mentioned. According to 1-B register, the pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to them in respect of land in Sy.No.46, though the land is recorded in the name of Grama Devatha in the SFA. In respect of Sy.No.51, the land to an extent of Ac.3-54 cents stood in the name of Grama Devatha as pattadar in SFA, whereas in Adangal, the names of Banda Nookalu, Banda Apparao, Banda Ramu, Banda Appalaraju, etc. were recorded as enjoyers. Therefore, as per the reports of the Tahsildar and the RDO, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.44/1 and 46, but no pattadar pass books or title deeds were issued in respect of the land in Sy.No.51 by that time. 12. were recorded as enjoyers. Therefore, as per the reports of the Tahsildar and the RDO, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.44/1 and 46, but no pattadar pass books or title deeds were issued in respect of the land in Sy.No.51 by that time. 12. It is further contended that as per the revenue records furnished i.e. Settlement Fair Adangal/pahani, the land in Sy.No.44/1 to an extent of Ac 3-94 cents was recorded in the name of "Grama Devatha Vanumulamma" as pattadar; the land in Sy.No.46 to an extent of Ac.7-04 cents was recorded in the name of "Amma vari Manyam Vanumulamma" as pattadar: and the land in Sy.No.51 to an extent of Ac.3-54 cents was recorded in the name of "Grama Devatha" as pattadar. Therefore, it is clear from the above revenue record coupled with the reports of the Tahsildar and RDO the above lands belong to Grama Devatha as they were recorded as pattadar in the year 1956 and the same was continued to be reflected in those records for more than 50 years, but surprisingly with the attempts of the alleged applicants on several applications, the learned Joint Collector vide orders dated 30.07.2016 observed it as a mistake of fact, without there being any authority and the said decision is not supported by any valid reasoning. 13. After passing of the order by the Joint Collector dated 30.07.2016, the applicants were issued pattadar passbooks by showing sub-divisions of Sy.No.51, as under: Sy. No. Extents Ac-cents Name of alleged Pattadar 51-A 0-89 Banda Apparao (1st vendor) 51-B 0-88 Banda Ramu (12th vendor) 51-C 0-88 Banda Nukalu (16th vendor) 51-D 0-89 Banda Appala Raju (21st Vendor) 14. By showing the above sub-divisions of 51-A to D, the said land was alleged to have been sold away by the said applicants to one Subha Gruha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director Sri Namburu Kalyan Chakravarthy S/o Sri Namburu Sankara Rao under alleged registered sale deed document bearing No.1354/2017 dated 15.04.2017, wherein they mentioned the flow of title by virtue of inheritance, the respective vendors names were incorporated in all the revenue records and the revenue authorities issued 1-B (ROR) i.e. by the Tahasildar, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District. From the contents of said document, it is clear that they have not disclosed about the orders of the Joint Collector dated 30.07.2016 and flow of title but they simply stated that the vendors got the lands by virtue of inheritance suppressing the material facts of title flow and got registered the document. 15. As the land in Sy.No.51 was registered in the name of Grama Devatha, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities for NOC, but before registering the said land, it appears from the record, that they have not approached the Department seeking any NOC in that regard and if they approach, they might know the details. 16. It is further contended that after the orders dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District, the applicants filed applications on or before 23.12.2017 for grant of Ryothwari pattas under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short “the Estates Abolition Act”) in respect of those lands i.e. Sy.No.44/1 (Ac.3-94 cents); 46 (Ac.7-04 cents) and 51 (Ac.3-54 cents), but the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam vide orders dated 24.01.2018, has clearly held that the land belongs to Grama Devatha, which was recorded as pattadar in the revenue records. Further, in the applications, the applicants of land in Sy.No.51 was only mentioned and they have not mentioned about Sy.Nos.51-A, B, C & D, as the same was not reflected in the orders dated 24.01.2018. In that orders, it is clearly mentioned that the claimants have approached the VUDA authorities after obtaining permission for approval of Layout Plan, since the entire surrounding lands are covered by residential layouts for want of sufficient irrigation sources and the land was cultivated earlier purely on rain and then the VUDA authorities pointed out that originally the said subject land was recorded in the name of Vanumulamma Devatha, as per the SFA as pattadar, which was settled in the year 1956 and expressed doubt about the correctness of the orders of the learned Joint Collector dated 30.07.2016, without quoting any authority under any of the Revenue enactments empowering him to incorporate the names of ryots in SFA in place of the Grama Devatha citing it as ‘mistake of fact’. After going through the entire material available on record, the learned Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam District vide orders dated 24.01.2018 rejected the claim of the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.44/1 and 46, filed review petition before the Government. The Government vide orders dated 04.07.2019, has set aside the orders of the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer dated 24.01.2018, but confirmed the orders of the Joint Collector dated 30.07.2016. Since the applicants of land in Sy.No.51, have not preferred any review petition before the Government, the alleged purchaser submitted an application to the Government to implement the decision of review petition as in the case of applicants in Sy.No.51. 17. It is further contended that the alleged sale deed was executed and registered on 15.04.2017 by showing sub-divisions of Sy.No.5 1 (A to D), but the same was not brought to the notice of the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam District in the orders dated 24.01.2018, if the same was brought to the notice of Joint Collector, the same would have been reflected in the orders. 18. It is further submitted that the main object of the Act 30 of 1987 is to enact a comprehensive law providing better management of the properties and utilization of funds of the institutions and endowments and it applies to all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not,in accordance with the provisions of the Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954. Therefore, there is no illegality in the communication sent by respondent No.1 to respondent No.6, referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in “Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1023 ”, “Teki Venkata Ratnam&Ors v. Dy. Commissioner, Endowment And others [Appeal (Civil) No.1560/1997]”, the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “P.S.R. Subrahmanyam v. Commissioner of Endowments, 1997 (6) ALT 346 (AP)” “Secretary to Government, Revenue Department v. Sri Swamy Ayyappa Co-Operative Society, 2003 (6) ALD 225 (AP),“S.Manikya Reddy v. the A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and another [W.P.No.29937/2013], “Sri Ganesha Parvathi Sametha Chodeswara Swamy Alaya Abhivruddi Sangam (Regd.No.430/2015) rep. by its President Sri S.Ramakum Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department and others [W.P.No.34844/2017]”, “Kum. by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and another [W.P.No.29937/2013], “Sri Ganesha Parvathi Sametha Chodeswara Swamy Alaya Abhivruddi Sangam (Regd.No.430/2015) rep. by its President Sri S.Ramakum Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department and others [W.P.No.34844/2017]”, “Kum. Shashikala v. Smt. Babita Sharma [Civil Revision Petition No.4596/2017]”, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 19. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed separate counter reiterating the contentions raised by respondent No.1. It is specifically contended that when a letter was addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent Nos.6 to 8 to keep the property in Prohibitory Properties List, in compliance of Section 22A of the Registration Act, it is the duty of the Registrar to follow the directions of respondent No.1, thereby there is no illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondents, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 20. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Government passed an order dated 04.07.2019 in review petition No.48/EA and AR/2019 setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer and Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam in proceedings S.R.No.11(a)01/2018/F2 (Rc.No.1453/2016/F2) dated 24.01.2018 while restoring the order of the Joint Collector in proceedings Rc.No.1453/2016/F2/dated 30.07.2016 and confirming the title deeds and pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners. This order became final. Again the respondents filed an application for re-opening the order dated 04.07.2019, which was kept in abeyance by this Court, thereby as on date, the petitioners are the owners of the land in dispute. Therefore, respondent No.1 being Special Commissioner is incompetent to address a letter to keep the subject property in prohibitory properties list under Section 22A of the Registration Act as there was no grant in favour of Grama Devatha or patta was issued under Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act. Thus, the deity/Grama Devatha is not in existence as admitted by respondents. Therefore, it is not a temple or charitable institution and that respondent No.1 has no control over the said alleged temple as it was not registered under Section 6 of the Act 30 of 1987 and the list of properties were not furnished to the Endowments Department under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987. Therefore, it is not a temple or charitable institution and that respondent No.1 has no control over the said alleged temple as it was not registered under Section 6 of the Act 30 of 1987 and the list of properties were not furnished to the Endowments Department under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987. In the absence of registration under Section 6 of the Act 30 of 1987 or submission of list under Section 6 or submission of list of properties under Section 43 (f) of the Act 30 of 1987, respondent No.1 is not competent to exercise any power under the Act and address a letter to respondent No.8, requested to declare the letter dated 09.04.2021 addressed by respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, consequently set aside the same. 21. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments vehemently contended that the disputed land is belonging to Grama Devatha as per SFA, even though, no patta was granted till date, still, it is under the control of respondent No.1. Apart from that the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Special Chief Secretary to Government has not attained finality since the petition to review the order is pending, which is kept in abeyance by this Court. If, for any reason, the land is allowed to be alienated by the respondents, the ultimate loser is deity. Respondent No.1 being the Special Commissioner of Endowments is under obligation to protect the property of deity, who is perpetual minor. Therefore, letter addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent Nos.6 to 8 is in accordance with law, requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 22. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would contend that when a letter was addressed by respondent No.1, the duty of respondent Nos.6 to 8 is only to implement the directions issued by respondent No.1 in terms of Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act. Therefore, the respondent Nos.6 to 8 are no way concerned except implementation of the letter addressed by respondent No.1, requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 23. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point needs to be answered by this Court is as follows : Whether respondent No.1 is incompetent to addressed impugned letter Lr.In.Rc.No.L1/COE-18023 (36)/1/2021 -L SEC – ENDOWMENTS, dated 09.04.2021 to respondent No.6 intimating the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act? 23. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point needs to be answered by this Court is as follows : Whether respondent No.1 is incompetent to addressed impugned letter Lr.In.Rc.No.L1/COE-18023 (36)/1/2021 -L SEC – ENDOWMENTS, dated 09.04.2021 to respondent No.6 intimating the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act? If not, whether the impugned letter be declared as illegal and liable to be set aside? POINT : 24. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the intimation was given to the Registrar by respondent No.1 – the Special Commissioner under impugned letter Lr.In.Rc.No.L1/COE-18023 (36)/1/2021 -L SEC – ENDOWMENTS, dated 09.04.2021. The impugned letter was addressed with a request not to register any document relating to the land in dispute, but it was addressed by respondent No.1 – Special Commissioner, Endowment Department. One of the main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.1 is incompetent to address such letter intimating that the land in dispute belongs to the temple, with a request not to register any document pertaining to the land in dispute. The Commissioner of Endowments is not a party to the present proceedings, but the Special Commissioner of Endowments Department is impleaded as respondent No.1 since the letter was addressed by him. 25. The Act 30 of 1987 did not provide appointment of any Special Commissioner of Endowments, but it permits appointment of Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner. 26. The word “Commissioner” is defined under Section 2 (6) of the Act 30 of 1987, which is as follows : “(6) ‘Commissioner’ means the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 and includes every officer who for the time being exercises the powers and performs the functions of a Commissioner under this Act or the rules made there under in respect of any charitable or religious institution or endowment as specified in sub-section (5) of section 3;” 27. A bare look at the definition of the word “Commissioner”, a person, who is discharging duties of “Commissioner” for the time being, refers to a person who is placed as “Full Additional Charge” for the post of Commissioner can be construed as “Commissioner” for the purpose of this Act. A Special Commissioner was appointed though a Commissioner is posted and discharging duties. A Special Commissioner was appointed though a Commissioner is posted and discharging duties. Hence, the question of discharging the duties of the Commissioner by the Special Commissioner, normally, would not arise. Therefore, the Special Commissioner cannot be equated with the Commissioner, who is a statutory authority under the Act. 28. Admittedly, the impugned letter was addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.6. The Act 30 of 1987 is silent as to who is competent to address such letter with a request not to entertain any registration relating to the land in question i.e. endowments property. The Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in “Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad (W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012, and 352 of 2013 dated 23.12.2015)” in depth considered the provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and summarised its conclusions, the relevant conclusions are as follows: (iii) Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering properties under clause (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated therein shall also forward to the registering authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if the property is covered under clause (d). (xii) The directions issued by learned single Judges in six judgments referred to above or any other judgments dealing with the provisions of Section 22-A, if they are inconsistent with the observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made clear that the observations made and directions issued in this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the registering authorities under the Registration Act or Government Officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts.” 29. As per the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.A.No.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013, as per the directions issued by the Government in Memo No.Assnt.I (1) 126/2016, dated 08.02.2016 and as per the circular memo of the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration Department vide G1/19131/2005 dated 13.04.2018, the competent authority to modify/delete lists furnished under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, is the Commissioner, Endowments or Secretary, Wakf Board. Thus, the Commissioner alone is competent to make a request not to register any document relating to the property included in the list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, but not a Special Commissioner or any other Commissioner. 30. In the present case, respondent No.1 addressed impugned letter to respondent No.6 intimating the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Therefore, respondent No.1 is incompetent to gave such intimation with a request not to register any document pertaining to the subject property. On this ground alone, the impugned letter is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. 31. One of the major contentions of the petitioners before this Court is that when the Settlement Officer – cum – Joint Collector already passed an order and the Government by memo dated 10.10.2019 setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer – cum – Joint Collector and upheld the earlier order of the Joint Collector dated 30.07.2016 and the said order is not challenged before any superior forum, the order of the Joint Collector dated 30.07.2016 attained finality. When the said order is attained finality, question of reopening the case, which is covered by the memo dated 10.10.2019 does not arise and a writ petition No.21412 of 2019 is filed before this Court and this Court was pleased to grant interim order keeping the said memo in abeyance. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Endowments would contend that intimation of prohibited prohibitory properties list by respondent No.1 to respondent N.6 is entirely different from the memo, which is the subject matter of writ petition No.21412 of 2019. Merely because, the memo was kept in abeyance, respondent No.1 is not disabled to take appropriate action to protect the property of the temple. 32. No doubt, W.P.No.21412 of 2019 is pending and this Court was pleased to grant interim direction keeping the memo dated 03.12.2019 in abeyance. Though the memo dated 03.12.2019 was kept in abeyance, still, respondent No.1 is entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with law subject to competency. In the present case, as discussed above, the Commissioner of Endowments alone is competent to give such intimation of list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, but the Special Commissioner is not a statutory authority. In the present case, as discussed above, the Commissioner of Endowments alone is competent to give such intimation of list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, but the Special Commissioner is not a statutory authority. Therefore, legality and validity of the memo issued to reopen the order passed by the Government earlier cannot be decided by this Court in the present writ petition since the question before this Court is the legality and validity of the impugned letter issued by respondent No.1 and competency of respondent No.1 to address such letter. 33. It is trite law that a person being a special Commissioner is not competent to discharge the duties of Commissioner of Endowments. Undisputedly, the Commissioner is working and the post of Commissioner is not kept vacant as on the date of issue of such letter. Therefore, respondent No.1 is incompetent to discharge the duties of the Commissioner and in the absence of any delegation of such power, respondent No.1 is incompetent to give such intimation to respondent No.6. 34. In any view of the matter, competency of the Revenue authorities to reopen the matter by issuing memo dated 03.12.2019, which is impugned in the writ petition No.21412 of 2019, is a different subject and the legality of such memo cannot be decided in the writ petition. However, such issue is covered by catena of perspective pronouncements. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioners to raise any contention permissible under law in the writ petition No.21412 of 2019 since the question in this matter is limited to legality of impugned letter on more than one ground, one such ground is competency of respondent No.1 to give such intimation of list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. 35. In view of my foregoing discussion, I hold that respondent No.1 is incompetent to give such intimation under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Consequently, the impugned memo is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners. 36. All other contentions raised by both the petitioners and the respondents need no adjudication in the present petition in view of the limited scope leaving it open to both parties to raise all the contentions in Writ Petition No.21412 of 2019. 37. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners. 36. All other contentions raised by both the petitioners and the respondents need no adjudication in the present petition in view of the limited scope leaving it open to both parties to raise all the contentions in Writ Petition No.21412 of 2019. 37. One of the requests made by the petitioners is to direct the Registrar to register the sale deeds in respect of the land/building/construction in Sy.No.44/1, 46 and 51 of Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 38. As discussed above, the impugned letter is illegal, arbitrary and without authority under law and the same is set aside. In the absence of any prohibition against registration of such property on presentation of any document, respondent Nos.6 to 8 are bound to register the document presented for registration subject to compliance of requirements under the Stamp and Registration Laws. Hence, respondent Nos.6 to 8 are directed to receive the document and process the same in accordance with law. 39. In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the impugned letter vide Lr.In.Rc.No.L1/COE-18023 (36)/1/2021 -L SEC – ENDOWMENTS dated 09.04.2021 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority under law, the same is hereby quashed. However, this order will not preclude the competent authority to take appropriate action in this regard. Further, respondent Nos.6 to 8 are directed to receive the document presented by the petitioners for registration and process the same in accordance with law. No costs. 40. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.