THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24974 of 2010 Date: 08.11.2010 Between: Mohammed Khaja Ghouse Mohiuddin and another ..... Petitioners AND The District Registrar, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N. Mukunda Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3:Sri T. Venkat Raju Goud The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the letter dated 10.08.2010 of respondent No.2 as confirmed in appeal No.7 of 2010, vide order dated 16.09.2010 of respondent No.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel representing respondent No.3. The petitioners pleaded that they have entered into an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2010 with Dr. Mohd. Mohiuddin and another for purchase of land admeasuring 3326.55 sq. yards forming part of plot No.64 in survey Nos.120 and 121 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and that respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.23213 of 2007 questioning G.O.Ms.No.1345 dated 18.10.2007 under which Dr. Mohd. Mohiuddin and another were conferred with the ownership of the abovementioned land. This Court granted interim suspension of the said G.O. When the agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 30.07.2010 was presented before respondent No.2, the same was received as pending document No.580 of 2010, but the said document was rejected in view of the order of status quo granted by this Court in W.P.No.23213 of 2007, vide order dated 02.11.2007. The order dated 10.08.2010, by which respondent No.2 has refused to register the document on the ground of subsistence of interim order granted by this Court was questioned in Appeal No.7 of 2010 filed before respondent No.1. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1, by his order dated 16.09.2010. A perusal of the order dated 10.08.2010 of respondent No.2 would show that the only ground on which he refused to register the document in question was that this Court on 02.11.2007 in W.P.M.P.Nos.30247 and 30248 of 2007 in W.P.No.23213 of 2007 directed all the parties to maintain status quo with respect to possession. Respondent No.2 in his order of refusal relied on standing order No.219(b) of Registration Mannual Part II in support of his decision not to register the document. In his order dated 16.09.2010 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.7 of 2010, while taking note of the fact that W.P.No.23213 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 11.08.2010 and also taking note of the contention of the petitioners that with the dismissal of the said writ petition, there is no impediment for registering the document, however, curiously refused to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2 and dismissed the appeal, instead of allowing the same. In my opinion, while the application of standing order No.219(b) to the present case itself is debatable, at any rate with the dismissal of W.P.No.23213 of 2007 filed by respondent No.3, there is no legal obstacle for respondent No.2 to register the document. Respondent No.1 has thoroughly failed to apply his mind in dismissing the appeal having taken note of the fact that W.P.No.23213 of 2007 was dismissed. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has stated that his client, who filed W.P.No.23213 of 2007 and at whose instance order of status quo regarding possession has been granted, has subsequently withdrawn the writ petition and that he has no objection whatsoever for registration of the document presented by the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders of respondent No.1 and 2 are quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to register the document presented by the petitioners for registration subject to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31921 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th November, 2010 GHN