THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17827 of 2008 DATED 24-08-2009 Between: Gumpu Venkataramana. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Sub Registrar, Rayachoti, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent refusing to entertain the request of the petitioner for registration of sale deed in respect of the land of Ac.6.00 in Sy.No.17/2 of Abbavaram village, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the Rules framed thereunder and contrary to the provisions under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondent to register the said sale deed or any other deed of conveyance being presented by the petitioner for the land. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land in an extent of Ac.6.00 covered by Sy.No.17/2 of Abbavaram village having got the same from his ancestors. The father of the petitioner-Venkataiah purchased the said property under a registered sale deed, dated 24-05-1998, from his vendor-John David Chellaiah. The name of the pattadar was registered in the resettlement register and mutated in all revenue records being maintained by the revenue department. The Pattadar pass books and title deeds were also granted in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder. Ever since such purchase, the father of the petitioner was the absolute owner and enjoyer of the said property during his life time and after his demise the petitioner has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. When the petitioner intended to sell the land to the third parties and went to the office of the respondent on 11-08-2008 with a request to give information as to the value enlisted in the basic value register being maintained by the Registration department for the said survey number, the respondent stated that he could not furnish any such information on the ground that the land was recorded as Government land in the relevant registers of registration department and as such, he would not entertain registration of any document, much less sale deed proposed to be executed by the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent. Perused the records. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the land in question was not notified as required under Section 22-A (E) of the Registration Act. Therefore, refusal of the respondent to receive and register the document submitted by the petitioner is arbitrary and is not permissible under law. 5. Respondent filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made in the affidavit. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the petitioner has not submitted any document for registration before the respondent and that if any such document is presented by the petitioner, the respondent would examine the same and pass appropriate orders as per law. 6. Under those circumstances, the petitioner is directed to present the document for registration and on such presentation the respondent would examine the same and register the same, if there are no valid objections or the land is not notified under Section 22-A of the Act, and release the document thereafter. If for any reason it is not registrable, the respondent shall furnish written reasons for such refusal. 7. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 24th August, 2009. Tsy