HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18742 of 2010 Dated: 06-08-2010 Between: B.Shiva Ramakrishna. … Petitioner And The Sub-Registrar, Narapally, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18742 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the action of respondents in not registering and releasing the document bearing No.82 of 2010, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner intends to purchase a piece of land admeasuring 200 square yards, covered by Plot No.55 in Survey Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 25 and 26 of Miyapur village of Ghatkesar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. It is the grievance of the petitioner that one Shaik Pasha Miya is the absolute owner and possessor of the land covered by the aforesaid survey numbers, admeasuring Ac.9.28 guntas and having obtained the layout from the local authority, he has divided the said land into plots and sold the plots to various individuals. It is stated that one Mr. Srinivas Rao has purchased Plot No.55 from the vendee of the original owner, and that the said Srinivasa Rao has offered to sell the said plot to the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner has presented the document for registration, it is kept pending, although the said piece of land is not covered by any notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, and is not assigned land. According to the petitioner, there is no reason for not considering the document for registration. On the other hand, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent, that as the property is Wakf property, same is not being registered. When a document is presented under the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder, such document is to be accepted and considered for registration. However, if there are any objections for its registration, the same are to be recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 71 of the Registration Act. But, at the same time, without recording any reasons, the registering authority cannot keep the document pending. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that with regard to the very same plot, registrations were affected earlier without raising any objections, but however, it is a matter to be considered by the registering authority. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s document bearing No.82/10 for registration, provided such document is in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. It is also made clear that if there are any reasons for not registering the document, respondents shall record such reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th August 2010 ajr