IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3146 of 2009 Between: Mrs. Ayesha Asma W/o. Syed Masood Ahmed R/o.17-7-161, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Stamps & Registration Department, A.P. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Stamps & Registration, Azampura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or writs more appropriately a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent for not passing any orders and withholding the document P.322/07 dated 7.3.2008 presented by the petitioner is illegal, void and un-constitutional in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.M.QURESHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner presented a deed of rectification before the second respondent for registration. It was assigned number P.322/07 and was kept pending. The second respondent issued a notice, dated 06.12.2007 to the petitioner stating inter alia that the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (for short ‘the Board’) addressed a letter, dated 22.01.2007 stating that the property in question was notified in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 16.03.1989 and that the prohibition contained in Section 22-A(1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) operates. This was followed by another notice, dated 07.03.2008 requiring the petitioner to obtain clearance certificate from the Board. The petitioner claims to have submitted explanation, dated 31.03.2008. Her grievance is that no action has been taken by the second respondent so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The second respondent expressed the view that the property covered by the document presented by the petitioner attracts Section 22- A(1)(c) of the Act. He has also insisted on obtaining clearance certificate from the Board. On her part, the petitioner submitted explanation. The same needs to be taken into account by the second respondent. In case he agrees with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the document has to be registered and on the other hand, if he is not satisfied, necessary communication has to be given, so that, the petitioner can workout her remedies. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to take necessary action on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the notices, dated 06.12.2007 and 07.03.2008, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni