JUDGMENT D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - With the consent of all the learned counsels, the arguments were heard in C.C.No.571 of 2022 since common questions and facts are raised. 2. W.P.Nos.16911; 17177 and 17276 of 2021 were filed questioning the inclusion of property under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'). All these writ petitions are allowed by a common order. Stating that the order has not complied with C.C.Nos.571 of 2022; 572 of 2022 and 573 of 2022 were filed in W.P.Nos.16911 of 2021; 17177 of 2021 and 17276 of 2021 respectively. 3. Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Writ Appeal filed by the respondents before the Division Bench was also dismissed by a common order, dated 08.07.2022, in W.A.No.394 and 291 of 2022. He, therefore, submits that the respondents are duty bound to comply with the order. Since they have willfully disobeyed the same, he submits that this Court should hold them guilty of contempt and punish them. 4. For respondents 2 and 3 Sri P. Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appeared and argued the matter. He submits that since the property is a Wakf property and is included in the prohibited list at the request of the Wakf Board, it is the Chief Executive Officer of the A.P. State Wakf Board alone, who can issue directions for deletion of the property. He submits that no contempt is committed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. He relies upon the Full Bench decision in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others v State of Andhra Pradesh 2016 (2) Andh LD 236:2016(1) ALD 550. He points out that basing upon a Circular Memo, dated 14.09.2007, specific directions have been issued that in case of properties falling under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act it is the only Commissioner Endowments or the Secretary, Wakf Board, who can either include the property or delete any property from the prohibited list. He also submits that in para 25 (iv) the Full Bench has clearly held it is the Secretary of the Wakf Board or the Commissioner of Endowments, who have the power to add or delete the property from the list. 5. For the Wakf Board, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appeared and argued the matter. He also submits that in para 25 (iv) the Full Bench has clearly held it is the Secretary of the Wakf Board or the Commissioner of Endowments, who have the power to add or delete the property from the list. 5. For the Wakf Board, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appeared and argued the matter. According to him the deponent of the counter is no longer the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board and it is for the present Chief Executive Officer to implement the orders. Learned senior counsel submits that in view of the provision of law as it is applicable the 4th respondent did not commit any contempt as he is transferred. 6. After hearing the submissions of the both the learned counsel, this Court has to agree with what is stated by Sri P.Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, who appeared for the State. Admittedly, the property in this case is in the prohibited list, because the Wakf Board addressed a letter stating that it is a Wakf property. Therefore, it is a property included under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act. The guidelines issued by the Government, as noticed by the Full Bench, clearly stated that the power to include the property belonging to the Wakf Board in prohibited list is only given to the Secretary, Wakf Board. Any deletion or modification from this list should also be sent to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in turn will furnish the same to the concerned registration authorities. In para 25 (iv) of the judgment it was noticed that it is the Secretary of the Wakf Board, who has the power to add to the list or to delete from any list and or to modify the list sent to the registering authorities. In para 25(v) the Full Bench upheld the guidelines and also noticed the provision is made for deletion and modification of the lists under Clause (a) to (d) and also for reconciliation. 7. In para 36 (ix) an option is given to the aggrieved party, which is covered by (a) to (d), to apply for the deletion from the list. This application should be made to the concerned authority as provided in the guidelines which in this case is the Secretary, Wakf Board. He in turn is under an obligation to pass an appropriate order within six weeks. This application should be made to the concerned authority as provided in the guidelines which in this case is the Secretary, Wakf Board. He in turn is under an obligation to pass an appropriate order within six weeks. 8. Apart from this redressal in paragraph 36 (xi) it is clarified that an aggrieved person can also approach the appropriate forum including the Civil Court for deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties. 9. In view of these clear and categorical pronouncement of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying upon the guidelines issued by the Government in Circular Memo dated 14.09.2007, this Court is of the opinion that it is the Secretary of the Wakf Board, who should take steps to delete the properties covered in all these three writ petitions from the prohibited list. 10. For the present, it is held that the current respondent did not commit any contempt whatsoever. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot actually also delete this particular property from the prohibited list since it is a Wakf property. The 4th respondent, who was working as the Secretary as the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board from 20.02.2020 to 15.03.2022 cannot also be strictly said to be guilty of willful disobedience. The order was passed in these writ petitions on 17.12.2021, the 4th respondent was holding office till 15.03.2022. The Wakf Board also preferred the Writ Appeal before the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, it can be said that they were pursing their legal remedies and are not actually guilty of willful disobedience in this case. 11. To give a quietus to the issue after hearing legal submissions it is observed that the appropriate person / officer to remove the properties from the 22-A (1)(c) list of Wakf Properties is the Chief Executive Officer / Secretary of the A.P. State Wakf Board. 12. The contempt applications are dismissed with a direction to the learned standing counsel for the Wakf Board and the Learned Senior Counsel appeared for the Wakf Board to communicate a copy of this order to the Wakf Board to do needful in the matter, so that the order of this Court is upheld / implemented. 13. With these observations the contempt applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.