THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23276 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.6-10 guntas in Sy.No.634 of Dabeerpur village and Gram Panchayat under Medchal Mandal in Rangareddy District from Sri K.Surendran son of Venkataramaiah and to have paid the entire sale consideration to the vendor before execution of the sale deed. It is his case that the vendor had executed a sale deed before the 2nd respondent, and had paid stamp duty to the Government for transfer of title and ownership as required under law, but the 2nd respondent had kept the sale deed pending. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite approaching the 2nd respondent on numerous occasions and orally requesting him to release the sale deed, the 2nd respondent had dodged the issue, and had not released the document. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation on 27.9.2006 resulting in the 2nd respondent issuing a memo on 29.9.2006 informing the petitioner that the M.R.O, Medchal in his letter No.B/2321/96 of July, 1996 had stated that it was Government land and, accordingly, the said sale deed could not be released. The petitioner would contend that, failure to release the document in question falls foul of provisions of Section 71 and 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. Under Section 71(1), the Sub- registrar, refusing to register a document, is required to make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order on the document, and on the application made by any person executing or claiming under the document. He is also required to give the person a copy of the reasons so recorded. Section 72 enables an appeal to be preferred against the order of the sub-registrar. In the case on hand, except to make a reference to the letter said to have been issued by the M.R.O. in the year 1996, the order under challenge is silent as to the basis on which the respondents claim that it is Government land. Under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 the State Government is empowered, by notification in the Official Gazette, to declare that the registration of any document, or class of documents, is opposed to public policy and, under sub-section (2) thereof, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the registering officer can refuse to register any document to which the notification, issued under sub-section (1), is applicable. The impugned order makes no reference to any such notification. It is indeed unfortunate that, despite service of notice, the respondents have not chosen to file their response by way of a counter affidavit It is even more distressing that the Government Pleader concerned has not thought it fit even to be present in the court when the case is taken up for hearing. On the last occasion i.e., 21.10.2010, the matter was adjourned by a week on account of the absence of the Government Pleader. The situation is no different today. In cases where public revenue is involved, and public property is at stake, such indifference necessitates attention being bestowed, to improve the situation, by those in the helm of affairs. As the averments, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, stand un-rebutted, I consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, more so, as it makes no mention of any notification having been issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The 2nd respondent shall give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, examine the matter afresh, and, thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________ 28-10-2010 asp