ORDER : (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.) 1. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar they are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of both the learned counsel. 2. The facts and circumstances of the cases are noted from W.P.No.22379 of 2023 as a lead matter. 3. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: W.P. No.22379 of 2023 "Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 herein in not deleting the petitioners plots No.18 to 20, 48 to 52, 77 to 83 total admeasuring 2413 Yds in Sy.No.58 & 65 situated at Nadergul Village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R. District from the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 basing on the Gazette Notification No.6A, dt.09.02.1989 issued treating the Lands as Waqf Lands and the said Gazette was set-aside by this Hon'ble Court in WP. No.3895/2019 and in WA.No.318 of 2021 and batch and recently in W.P. No.16142/2023 dated 12.7.2023 and in W.P. No.18480/2023 dated 21.7.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein to delete the above lands from the Prohibitory list under Sec.22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and 2) to direct the Respondent No.5 to receive and process sale deeds for registrations in respect of the plots Nos. 18 to 20, 48 to 52, 77 to 83 total admeasuring 2413 in Sy.No.58 & 65 situated at Nadergul village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R.District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." W.P. No.24321 of 2023 "Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No.5 herein in not entertaining registrations of the petitioner's plot Nos. 101 to 108 & 117 to 120 total admeasuring 1700 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.58, 59 & 65 situated at Nadergul Village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R. District relying on the Gazette Notification No.6A, dt.09.02.1989 issued declaring the Lands as Waqf Lands, which was set- aside by this Hon'ble Court ( AIR 2002 AP 313 ) and further followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP.No.3895/2019 and WA.No.318 of 2021 and batch and recently in W.P. No.16142/2023 dated 12.7.2023 and in W.P. No.18480/2023 dated 21.7.2023 as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.5 to receive and process sale deeds presented for registrations in respect of the plots No.101 to 108 & 117 to 120 total admeasuring 1700 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.58, 59 & 65 situated at Nadergul Village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R. District, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." W.P. No.24324 of 2023 "Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No.5 herein in not entertaining registrations of the petitioner's plot Nos. 121 to 138 total admeasuring 2956 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.58, 59 & 65 situated at Nadergul Village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R. District relying on the Gazette Notification No.6A, dt.09.02.1989 issued declaring the Lands as Waqf Lands, which was set- aside by this Hon'ble Court ( AIR 2002 AP 313 ) and further followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP.No.3895/2019 and WA.No.318 of 2021 and batch and recently in W.P. No.16142/2023 dated 12.7.2023 and in W.P. No.18480/2023 dated 21.7.2023 as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.5 to receive and process the sale deeds presented for registrations in respect of the plots No.121 to 138 total admeasuring 2956 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.58, 59 & 65 situated at Nadergul Village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R. District, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.22379 of 2023 are that the petitioner is M/s. Lakshmi Nilaya Constructions, represented by its partners submitted that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands admeasuring Acs.2.11 gts., & Acs.2.10 gts., in Sy.No.58 & 65 situated at Nadergul Village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R.District having acquired the same by virtue of purchase under registered sale deed dated 24.03.2005 bearing Document No.2805/2005 from its previous owners M/s. Surya Chandra Real Estates, who acquired the title and possession in respect of the said land by virtue of purchase under registered sale deed dated 22.06.2002 bearing Document No.4387/2002 from its previous owner Syed Osmanuddin and (4) others by paying valuable consideration. It is further submitted that the nature of the land in Sy.Nos. 58 and 65 and other survey numbers of Nadergul village are Mafi Inam and as such are governed by the provisions of the A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. It is submitted that Mr.Syed Sharfuddin and Mr. Azeemuddin both sons of late Nizamuddin were granted with Occupancy Rights Certificate in recognition of their rights as they were in possession as on the crucial date 01.11.1973 by virtue of the orders dated 13.05.1992 in proceedings No.J/2436/1982 by the then RDO, Hyderabad (East) Division, R.R.District and the said ORC had attained finality in the eye of law. 5. It is further submitted that the legal heirs of Mr.Syed Azeemuddin and Mr.Nizamuddin are the vendors who executed the registered sale deed dated 22.06.2002 bearing Document No.4387/2002 in favour of M/s. Surya Chandra Real Estates which in turn executed registered sale deed bearing Document No.2805/2005 in favour of M/s. Lakshmi Nilaya Constructions having become the absolute owner and possessor of the said land in turn bifurcated the said extent into residential plots and executed registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.06.2013 bearing Document No.1552/2013 in favour of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3 in respect of the plots bearing No.18 to 20, 48 to 52, 77 to 83 totally admeasuring 2413 square yards in Sy.No.58 & 65 situated at Nadergul village presently Balapur Mandal, R.R. District authorizing to deal with the said plots in all respects and aspects. 6. 6. While the things stood thus, it was learnt through the subsequent purchasers/plot owners that the said survey numbers are being included in the prohibitory list maintained by the respondent No.5 authority under Section 22(A) of Registration Act, 1908 and as such the said authority is not entertaining the registrations of sale deeds on the ground that the Dry land admeasuring Acs.9.15 guntas and Wet land admeasuring Acs.12.26 guntas in Sy.Nos. 58, 65 and 874 situated at Nadargul village presently Balapur Mandal were illegally notified as WAKF property in the State Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 at page No.233 Sl.No.2929. 7. It is significant to note here that the subject lands in W.P. Nos. 24321 and 24324 of 2023 are falling in the very same said survey numbers i.e. Sy.Nos. 58, 59 and 65 and which were notified as WAKF property in the Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 and by virtue of the Gazette notification, the Registering authorities are not entertaining the registrations of sale deeds. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Stamps and Registration filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.5, Sub-Registrar, stating that the subject lands of the writ petitions were included in the prohibitory list on the strength of the Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1987 and the 6th respondent also addressed a letter dated 31.07.2017 not to entertain any transactions over the subject survey numbers. It is further submitted that the Sub-Registrar, is not empowered to delete the properties entered under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 9. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent No.6 counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the subject lands are notified under the Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 and the subject properties are listed under the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Act and accordingly barred for any further registration. It is further submitted that even if the said Gazette is quashed, the properties notified under the said Gazette are remain Waqf and would not destroy its character of that bearing a wakf. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that challenging the said Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 a batch of writ petitions being W.P.Nos. It is further submitted that even if the said Gazette is quashed, the properties notified under the said Gazette are remain Waqf and would not destroy its character of that bearing a wakf. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that challenging the said Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 a batch of writ petitions being W.P.Nos. 12275 of 1993, 25392 of 1996 and 682 of 1997 were filed before this Court and after hearing at length and after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 289 and AIR 2000 SC 3488 , this Court allowed the said batch of writ petitions by setting aside the Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989 by observing that the said notification by which the Gazette was published was held to be a notification issued without complying with the provisions of the WAKF Act, 1954. The said decision was reported in AIR (2002) AP 313. He would further submit that by following the said authority, this Court in W.P. No.3895 of 2019 passed order dated 26.09.2019 by reiterating that the said notification dated 09.02.1989 is invalid and the order passed by the 2nd respondent, District Collector, was set aside with a direction to him to receive the document presented by the petitioners for the purpose of registration. It is further submitted that the said decision of declaring the waqf notification as invalid had attained finality in the eye of law as such, the inclusion of the subject lands in the prohibitory list, based on the very same notification, which was already set-aside, is illegal and against the fundamental right to property guaranteed under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. 11. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Stamps and Registration and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Wakf have reiterated their counter averments. 12. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on the record. 13. It is significant to note here that during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the various judgments to substantiate that the Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 has become ineffectual and was even declared that the said Gazette is bad in law. 14. It is essential to refer the following judicial pronouncements reported in the case of B.Gowra Reddy (deceased by L.Rs.) and others Vs. Govt. 14. It is essential to refer the following judicial pronouncements reported in the case of B.Gowra Reddy (deceased by L.Rs.) and others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, AIR 2002 ANDHRA PRADESH 313 wherein at para 33 & 34 held as under: "33. It is also to be noted in this regard that though the Wakf Board has been contending that the property in question is a wakf property, which was notified in the Official Gazette as early as in 1989, but it is surprising to note that till today no action has been initiated either for evicting the petitioners or for recovery of possession of the wakf property and no proceedings were initiated before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. None of the revenue records even whisper about the property as belonging to Wakf Board. It appears that the Wakf Board has filed an appeal only against the order of granting occupancy rights to the petitioners, and that too after one and half decades which is pending before the appellate authority on which I am not inclined to make any comments. Under these circumstances, I have to necessarily hold that the notification published by the Wakf Board in the Gazette on 9-2-1989 is not valid and the same is not binding on the petitioners. Accordingly, it is set aside as far as the petitioners are concerned. So far as the relief for quashing the proceedings pending before the appellate authority under the Inams Abolition Act is concerned, I am not inclined to do so. It is open for the parties to agitate their respective rights before the appropriate authority. 34. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs." 15. Having considered the said order, this Court passed order on 26.09.2019 in W.P. No.3895 of 2019, which reads as under: "Heard counsel for the petitioners, the Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 & 2, and Sri M.A.Mujeeb, Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent-Wakf Board. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dt.14.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the document presented by the petitioners for registration on the basis that the property, which is subject matter of the document, is covered by a list of Wakf properties contained in a Gazette Notification No.6A dt.09.02.1989. 3. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dt.14.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the document presented by the petitioners for registration on the basis that the property, which is subject matter of the document, is covered by a list of Wakf properties contained in a Gazette Notification No.6A dt.09.02.1989. 3. Admittedly, the said notification has been held to be a notification issued without complying with the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 by this Court in B.Gowra Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. 4. Therefore, the said notification has no legal validity and cannot be a basis for refusing to receive the document presented by the petitioner treating the property, which was subject matter of the said document, to be wakf property. 5. Accordingly, the order dt.14.02.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to receive the document presented by the petitioners for the purpose of registration, if it is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and register the document and release it to the petitioners. 6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall stand closed." 16. W.A. No.318 of 2021 and batch have been preferred against W.P.No.1705 of 2011 and batch and W.P. No.24100 of 2009 and batch questioning the Gazette Notification Supplement 2 Part-II No.6A, dated 09.02.1989, issued by the Waqf Board and also aggrieved by the action of the Registration Authorities in refusing to register the subject documents therein on the ground that the said lands are included in the Prohibitory List under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 being notified as property of Wakf Institution under Gazette No.6-A, dated 09.02.1989, respectively. In the said batch of writ appeals, the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 12.11.2021 observed as under: 10. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the Notification, dated 09.02.1989 issued by the Wakf Board declaring the lands as wakf lands. The relevant findings of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which deals with the Notification dated 09.02.1989 is reproduced as under:- .... The learned Single Judge has dealt with the Notification, dated 09.02.1989 issued by the Wakf Board declaring the lands as wakf lands. The relevant findings of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which deals with the Notification dated 09.02.1989 is reproduced as under:- .... Moreover, all the above referred judgments of this Court have become final and till date they are not set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore hold good. In view of the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the notification, dated 09.02.1989, issued by the Waqf Board is one without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the second batch of writ petitions are allowed and the notification dated 09.02.1989, is set aside. .... Insofar as third batch of writ petitions filed aggrieved by the Notification issued under Section 22-A of the registration Act are concerned, in view of the fact that the said notification has been issued based on the Notification dated 09.02.1989 issued under the Waqf Act, which has already been set aside by this Court, the Notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act has to be necessarily set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the third batch of writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed, to the extent indicated above." 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Writ Appeal i.e., W.A.No.1010 of 2012 has upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2012, by which the Notification, dated 09.02.1989 was set aside, the question of taking a different view in the present Writ Appeals does not arise. Once the Notification has been held to be bad in law and the land which was subject matter of the Notification is again subject matter of the same Notification, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions. 12. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the second batch of writ petitions does not warrant any interference and the writ appeals arising out of second batch of writ petitions are dismissed. 13. 12. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the second batch of writ petitions does not warrant any interference and the writ appeals arising out of second batch of writ petitions are dismissed. 13. In the third batch of Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners therein was prohibition of registration of land on account of a Notification under issued Section 22-A of the Registration Act based on the Notification dated 09.02.1989 declaring the lands as wakf. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the Notification dated 09.021989 has been held to be bad in law, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the Notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. In the light of the above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the third batch of writ petitions does not warrant any interference and the writ appeals arising out of that batch of writ petitions are dismissed. 15. Resultantly, all the writ appeals are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 17. From the above all judicial pronouncements it is conspicuous that the notification No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 has been held to be a notification issued without complying with the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 as observed by this Court in Gowra Reddy's case (one supra) and eventually it was also held that the said notification published by the Wakf board in the Gazette on 09.02.1989 is not valid and was set aside accordingly. Further, in the order dated 12.11.2021 passed in the batch of writ appeals in W.A. No.318 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically observed that "once the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Writ Appeal i.e., W.A. No.1010 of 2012 has upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2012, by which the Notification, dated 09.02.1989 was set aside, the question of taking a different view in the present Writ Appeal does not arise" and held that "this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions." 18. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Sub-Registrar has no power to denotify the subject lands from the prohibitory list however, drawn the attention of this Court to sub Section 4 of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 to the effect that the State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person may denotify the notification. Sub-Section (4) of Section 22-A reads as under: "(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or Supreme Court of India may proceed to denotify, either in full or in part, the notification issued under sub-section (2).]" 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Gazette Notification No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 is held to be not valid and as such the same is not binding on the petitioners. Accordingly, it is set aside as far as the petitioners' subject lands are concerned. Consequently, the 1st respondent is directed to proceed to denotify the subject properties of these writ petitions i.e. Plot Nos. 18 to 20, 48 to 52, 77 to 83 total admeasuring 2413 Yds in Sy.No.58 & 65 in W.P. No.22373 of 2023; Plot Nos. 101 to 108 & 117 to 120 total admeasuring 1700 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.58, 59 & 65 in W.P. No.24321 of 2023 and Plot Nos. 121 to 138 total admeasuring 2956 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.58, 59 & 65 in W.P. No.24324 of 2023 situated at Nadergul Village, presently Balapur Mandal, R.R. District from the Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Sub-Registrar, thereafter denotification of the subject properties from the prohibitory list, is directed to receive and process the sale deeds being presented for registrations in respect to the subject properties of the petitioners are concerned subject to complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It is also made clear that the observations and directions made in this common order are confined only to the petitioners' subject lands in W.P. Nos. 22379, 24321 and 24324 of 2023. 20. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is also made clear that the observations and directions made in this common order are confined only to the petitioners' subject lands in W.P. Nos. 22379, 24321 and 24324 of 2023. 20. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.