ORDER : 1. As the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. For reference, the facts in W.P.No.21767 of 2021 are being taken up. 3. W.P.No.21767 of 2021 is filed with the following prayer: “… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Intimation of Refusal through Memo No.60/2021 issued by the 3rd respondent refusing to register document No.P-11/2021 i.e., sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of land bearing plot No.95/P & 96/P admeasuring 254 sq. yards under sy.Nos.299/P, 300/P & 301/P part and parcel of Vision Valley, situated at Mamidipally Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the basis of the AP Gazette Notification No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to provisions of Registration Act, 1908, and set aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents to register and release the document No.P-11/2021 i.e. sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of subject land, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in circumstances of case.” 4. Heard Mr. E. Kalyan Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.21767 of 2021 and 33662 of 2022, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board. 5. Petitioner claims to be a lawful owner and possessor of land bearing Plot Nos.95/P and 96/P admeasuring 254 sq. yards in Survey Nos.299/P, 300/P and 301/P, which are part and parcel of Vision Valley, situated at Mamidipally Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner claims that he purchased the said extents of land by registered sale deed bearing No.759 of 2010, dated 26.04.2010, that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. That vendors of petitioner were pattadars and possessors of subject lands and their names were recorded as pattadars and possessors in the revenue records, they in turn entered into a development agreement-cum-general power of attorney with M/s.Sai Sakthi Projects Private Limited and layout permission was issued on 07.08.2006. The subject property was sold after obtaining permission in 2010. 6. That vendors of petitioner were pattadars and possessors of subject lands and their names were recorded as pattadars and possessors in the revenue records, they in turn entered into a development agreement-cum-general power of attorney with M/s.Sai Sakthi Projects Private Limited and layout permission was issued on 07.08.2006. The subject property was sold after obtaining permission in 2010. 6. It is submitted that due to personal necessities, when the petitioner approached respondent No.3 on 17.02.2021 for sale of land, the Sub Registrar -respondent No.3 refused to register the land vide refusal Memo No.60/2021, dated 03.03.2021 (Ex.P1, Page No.10) on the ground that the subject land was prohibited for registration under Section 22A (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is also submitted that the property was under the Gazette Notification No.6-A, dated 09.02.1989. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.5938 of 2006 and batch. By common order dated 11.02.2021, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. Order of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal vide W.A.Nos.318 of 2021 and batch. The Division Bench of this Court by common judgment dated 12.11.2021 dismissed the writ appeals. The Waqf Board carried the matter to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.4166-4175 of 2022 dismissed the appeals. 8. It is contended that these writ petitions have to meet the same fate as that of the writ petitions in the batch matters. In other words, it is contended that the writ petitions have to be allowed as the refusal to receive and register the sale deeds is not in accordance with law as the notification dated 09.02.1989 which was issued under Section 5(2) of the Waqf Act, 1954 was set aside by the learned Single Judge, confirmed by the Division Bench and further confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board contended that in the light of the amendments to the Waqf Act as recently as in April, 2025, the Waqf Board is entitled to contest the matter on the basis of the amendments. It is pointed out that in view of the amendments to the Waqf Act, the Waqf Board is empowered to initiate proceedings afresh. It is pointed out that in view of the amendments to the Waqf Act, the Waqf Board is empowered to initiate proceedings afresh. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that this Court has to consider the aspect of amendments. 10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 11. Petitioner approached respondent No.3 for sale of the subject property, which he claims to have purchased through his vendors who were issued pattadar passbooks and were possessors of land in Survey Nos.299/P, 300/P & 301/P of Mamidipally Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Gazette Notification No.6-A, dated 09.02.1989, was issued by the Waqf Board, in which, it is reflected that the said properties were waqf properties. A refusal Memo No.60 of 2021, dated 03.03.2021, was issued by the Sub Registrar, Champapet. The intimation of refusal is addressed to the petitioner herein. The following are the contents of intimation of refusal Memo, dated 03.03.2021: “… Attention of parties in the address entry is invited to the subject and references cited, it is to inform that, Registration of the Pending Document No.P-11/2021 in question is Refused as per Section 22-A(1)(C) of Registration Act 1908 as the Survey Numbers of the property comes under Wakf Land. The parties may within (30) days of refusal order, appeal to the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District under Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908.” 12. Refusal is based on the ground that the subject survey numbers are reflected as waqf lands pursuant to notification dated 09.02.1989. 13. A copy of the notification issued on 09.02.1989 is annexed as a document (Ex.P4, Page No.29) and subject survey numbers are reflected in the said notification. It is trite to take note of the fact that a batch of writ petitions came to be filed i.e., W.P.No.5938 of 2006 and batch. The batch was referred as I Batch, II Batch and III Batch by learned Single Judge of this Court. It is observed by learned Single Judge in his order that the issue involved in all the writ petitions being intrinsically connected to Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989, all the writ petitions were taken up altogether. The issue which is to be considered in this batch of writ petitions also pertains to the Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989. It is observed by learned Single Judge in his order that the issue involved in all the writ petitions being intrinsically connected to Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989, all the writ petitions were taken up altogether. The issue which is to be considered in this batch of writ petitions also pertains to the Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989. Learned Single Judge, after considering the entire factual matrix of the case, allowed the batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.5938 of 2006 and batch by common order dated 11.02.2021. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: “… Moreover, in State Bank of India vs. M.S. Basi & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 347 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the order is liable to be set aside if no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the parties who are adversely affected. Further, in Mariamma Roy vs. Indian Bank & Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 187 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if an alternative remedy is available, if violation of the principles of natural justice is alleged, the writ petition is maintainable and the High Court can interfere. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that it is only the Waqf Tribunal that can go into the validity or otherwise of the Gazette Notification cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. The impugned order passed by the Joint Collector setting aside the order of the RDO granting ORCs without putting the parties on notice and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, violates the well recognized principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem and the same cannot be countenanced and is liable to be set aside on this sole ground. As seen from the record, the only material before the Joint Collector was the Waqf Notification, dated 09.02.1989, and admittedly the Waqf Board was not a party to the said proceedings nor there was any other material to contend that the subject lands are Waqf lands. In view of the fact that the notification dated 09.02.1989 itself has been held to be invalid and unsustainable and is set aside by this Court in the second batch of writ petitions, the order of the Joint Collector granting ORC in favour of the Waqf Board is also liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. However, taking into consideration the arguments putforth by the Waqf Board, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the Joint Collector. Accordingly, the first batch of writ petitions are allowed and remanded back to the Joint Collector (now designated as Additional Collector (Revenue) to decide the matter afresh duly taking into consideration the above observations made by this Court. This entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the Waqf Board, if it chooses, can implead itself before the Joint Collector and place any other material besides notification dated 09.02.1989, which has already been set aside, to buttress their case that the lands in question are Waqf lands and the same shall also be taken into consideration by the Joint Collector while passing the orders on merits. It is needless to mention that all the parties shall be put on notice and afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing, before passing of the orders. It is also made clear that pending the appeals before the Joint Collector, if the parties alienate or change the nature of the lands, the same will be subject to the final orders likely to be passed by the Joint Collector, and in case any adverse orders are passed, the parties shall not claim any equities. 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.” 14. The common order of the learned Single Judge was carried in Writ Appeal. A Division Bench of this Court by common judgment dated 12.11.2021 held as follows: “… 11. Accordingly, the third batch of writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed, to the extent indicated above.” 14. The common order of the learned Single Judge was carried in Writ Appeal. A Division Bench of this Court by common judgment dated 12.11.2021 held as follows: “… 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. 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 09.02.1989 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.” 15. On a perusal of the above order, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the Waqf Board. 15. Resultantly, all the writ appeals are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 15. On a perusal of the above order, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the Waqf Board. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the Telangana State Waqf Board preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 26.11.2024 held as follows: “1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 2. However, all the questions of law are kept open. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 16. The subject matter in the writ petitions also pertains to the extents of lands which are part of the notification dated 09.02.1989. As the issue involved in the writ petitions being similar in nature to that of writ petitions, which fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge and subsequently carried to the Division Bench and later to the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court, having perused the orders, is not inclined to take a different view and deems it appropriate that the writ petitions be allowed in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the orders of the High Court. Though it is contended by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Waqf Board that liberty be granted under the new law of the Waqf Act, it is made clear that these orders are qua the notification. This Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect of the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel on the applicability of amendments to the Waqf Act, as they would be considered in an appropriate case. 17. With the above observations, the writ petitions are allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.