ORDER : B Krishna Mohan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader-Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in showing the property of petitioners bearing D.No.(New) 37-1-56 covered under three T.S.Nos.94, 95 and 96 totally admeasuring 65 gadis situated at Ongole Town and Municipality, Prakasam District, under prohibitory list u/s.22(A)(1)(C) of Registration Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ grandfather Ch.Venkateswarlu purchased five different properties from the year 1952 onwards bearing D.No.(New) 37-1-56 on the Eastern side adjoining the Trunk Road of Ongole Town and Municipality covered under three T.S.Nos.94, 95 & 96 and developed them as a single portion which were given D.No.(New) 37-1-56 by the Municipal Authorities. After the demise of their grandfather, the father of the petitioners became the absolute owner of the said property and enjoyed the possession of the same without any interruption. After his demise, the petitioners became the legal heirs of their father and succeeded the said property. The petitioners’ grandfather’s vendor by name Aravapalli Panakalu filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 1943 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Ongole basing upon the sale deed dated 24.04.1942 and the said suit was decreed on 09.10.1944 which was upheld in A.S.No.350 of 1944 on the file of Sub Court, Bapatla vide its judgment dated 30.08.1945. Thus, she submits that the petitioners have got the flow of title over the said property. She further submits that the petitioners’ grandfather purchased the same along with adjacent properties under different registered sale deeds from different vendors. The Municipal records also reveal that the property in question was listed in unendowed properties. Out of the properties purchased by the petitioners’ grandfather in T.S.Nos.94, 95 and 96 totally admeasuring 65 gadis, an area of 24 gadis comes under T.S.No.95 of Ongole Municipality. The subject extent of 24 gadis in T.S.No.95 which was the subject matter of O.S.No.69 of 1943 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Ongole dated 09.10.1944 is not an endowed property and the same is a separate property which was never used as choultry and the same was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ family members. The subject extent of 24 gadis in T.S.No.95 which was the subject matter of O.S.No.69 of 1943 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Ongole dated 09.10.1944 is not an endowed property and the same is a separate property which was never used as choultry and the same was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ family members. When a part of the above said property was leased out to one Mr.T.S.Hariharan, with a malafide intention to continue in the said property, he submitted a representation to the Endowments Department by furnishing an old registered partition document No.228 of 1888 dated 10.02.1888 wherein it was mentioned to utilize some portion of the property for charitable purposes to claim it as an endowed property. When the petitioners’ father, during his lifetime, instituted O.S.No.162 of 1993 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Ongole against the said tenant Mr. Hariharan for eviction and damages, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments filed I.A.No.465 of 1996 in O.S.No.162 of 1993 to implead and the same was dismissed on 11.06.1996. The single Trustee of Dharma Sathram filed a Revision before the erstwhile High Court in C.R.P.No.2178 of 1999 against the order dated 09.06.1999 in E.P.No.125 of 1999 in O.S.No.162 of 1993 and the same was dismissed on 04.11.1999 with an observation that there is no justification as to why the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India instead of availing the remedies under Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order dated 09.06.1999 in E.P.No.125 of 1999 in O.S.No.162 of 1993. The said suit in O.S.No.162 of 1993 dated 05.07.1996 was decreed, against which the above said tenant preferred A.S.No.159 of 1996 on the file of District Court, Prakasam District at Ongole and the same was dismissed. While so, the petitioners’ father in his lifetime received notice from the Endowments Department to vacate the property D.Nos.37-1-56, 37-1-56A to 37-1-59 claiming it as an endowed property. The petitioners’ father sent a reply to it dated 27.09.1996 denying the allegations mentioned in the notice and claimed that the subject property is not an endowed property by reiterating the above said flow of title. She further contended that the property in question was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners under different registered sale deeds and later it was developed as a single bit. She further contended that the property in question was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners under different registered sale deeds and later it was developed as a single bit. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur dismissed the O.A.No.13 of 1999 dated 15.06.2002 filed by one Mr. C.Lanka Subhash Chandra Bose. While so, to the utter surprise of the petitioners, the land in an extent of 24 gadis in T.S.No.95 of Ongole Municipality was shown in the prohibited list u/s.22(A)(1)(C) of the Registration Act. By virtue of inclusion of the subject extent in the prohibited list, being the owners of the property, petitioners are unable to execute/register rental agreements, partition deeds, sale deeds etc. Though the petitioners made representation dated 26.02.2021 to the respondents with relevant facts, the same was not considered. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments relying upon the counter of the 3 rd respondent submits that the petitioners could have approached the learned A.P. Endowments Tribunal by invoking Section 87 of the Act 30/1987. There is a choultry by name Vennelaganti Hanumantha Rao Dharma Choultry at Trunk Road, Ongole, having endowed in Ward No.6, Block No.2, T.S.No.95 of Ongole Municipality at Trunk Road, Ongole for running the sad choultry. It was founded more than 130 years ago for the purpose of providing shelter to the way-farers vide Item No.19 of the properties mentioned in the partition deed. The above said choultry was included in the list of the properties mentioned in the partition deed vide Document No.228/1888 SRO Nellore dated 13.02.1888. Item No.11 of the said document deals with the obligations of the parties to it towards running and the administration of the above said choultry. The said choultry is a public charitable institution under the provisions of the Endowments Act 30/1987. No doubt the said choultry now became defunct, but the endowed property shall be utilized for similar purposes as laid down u/s.73 of the Act. Since the above said choultry is a public charitable institution, its properties in T.S.No.95, Block No.2, Ward No.6 and D.Nos.37-1-56, 37-1-56A, 37-1-58 and 37-1-59 are included in the prohibitory list maintained u/s.22(A)(1)(C) of the Registration Act to take over the endowed property of the public choultry from illegal transactions. 5. Since the above said choultry is a public charitable institution, its properties in T.S.No.95, Block No.2, Ward No.6 and D.Nos.37-1-56, 37-1-56A, 37-1-58 and 37-1-59 are included in the prohibitory list maintained u/s.22(A)(1)(C) of the Registration Act to take over the endowed property of the public choultry from illegal transactions. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, without going into the merits of the case, as the representation of the petitioners dated 26.02.2021 was not acted upon, the petitioners are permitted to make a representation afresh to the 3 rd respondent enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of such representation from the petitioners, the 3 rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records, the documents furnished by the petitioners and the respondents and upon verification of any other relevant material for the purpose of this case and uninfluenced by the counter of the 3 rd respondent filed in this writ petition, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioners as directed above. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.