THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18403 of 2008 Oral order: The 1st petitioner states that he is a business man, and is carrying on business in cotton trade, marine exports and real estate development, including construction, and that he is one of the partners in M/s. Sri Balachamundeshwari Cotton Company since 1994 and the 2nd petitioner, namely M/s. Sri Balachamundeshwari Constructions Pvt. Ltd. since 2000. He purchased with his own earnings, land in an extent of 611.78 Sq. yds. of land in Sy. No. 8/B and 8/B-1 of Koretipadu village, vide registered Document No. 653/1997, dated 06.02.1997 and RCC building bearing D.No.11-672 constructed in an extent of 520 Sq. yds. in Sy. No. 140/1, Koretipadu, Guntur, vide registered Document No. 11320/2003, dated 01.12.2003, and that the 2nd petitioner had purchased land in an extent of Acs. 4.33 cents in Sy. No. 186/4-14-224, Koretipadu, Guntur, vide registered Document No. 5716/2005, dated 11.04.2005. The 1st petitioner states that the said properties were declared in the Income Tax Returns ﬁled by him, and they are also shown in the Balance Sheets. He states that he and the 2nd petitioner having obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Guntur, for construction of the ﬂats in the said plots, constructed the plots and entered into agreements with several purchasers, for sale of the ﬂats. He further states that when they approached the 1st respondent, namely the Sub Registrar, Koretipadu, Guntur, for registration of the sale deeds executed by them in favour of their purchasers, in respect of the ﬂats constructed by them in the properties in question, the 1st respondent refused to receive and register them. Therefore, he made an application under the Right to Information Act requesting the 1st respondent to furnish the information/reason, as to why he is refusing to receive and register the documents. In reply to the said request, the 1st petitioner states that the 1st respondent issued Memo dated 14.08.2008, enclosing copy of the letter dated 30.07.2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Visakhapatnam, wherein it is stated that a disproportionate assets case has been registered against Sri Rayapati Subba Rao (father of the 1st petitioner), and that an FIR on the ﬁle of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, is pending investigation, and therefore, the transactions with respect to the properties mentioned therein be kept under suspension and no sale of the said properties be allowed without reference to his office. Hence, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition to declare the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to receive and register the documents in relation to the properties owned by them on the basis of the letter dated 30.07.2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to register the properties without reference to the letter of the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Item Nos. 5 and 11 of the properties mentioned in the letter dated 30.07.2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, are the self-acquired properties of the 1st petitioner, while Item No.12 of the properties, are acquired by the 2nd petitioner, in which the 1st petitioner is one of the partners. He submits that the properties purchased by the petitioners are reﬂected in the Income Tax Returns ﬁled by them as also the Balance Sheets, and to substantiate the said submission, they ﬁled xerox copies of the Income Tax Returns and Balance Sheets. He submits that neither the 1st petitioner nor the 2nd petitioner has anything to do with the disproportionate case registered by the 2nd respondent against the father of the 1st petitioner and mother, and neither the 1st petitioner nor the 2nd respondent having been shown as accused in the said disproportionate case, the 2nd respondent could not have addressed the letter dated 30.07.2008 requesting the 1st respondent not to receive and register any document in relation to the properties purchased by the petitioners, and basing on such letter, the 1st respondent could not have refused to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioners for registration in respect of the properties in question in favour of third parties. He submitted that except for the grounds mentioned in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the 1st respondent cannot refuse registration of a document, and at any rate, he cannot refuse to register documents on the basis of instructions given by the revenue or police authorities. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court i n M. Kesavulu Naidu v. District Registrar, Balaji District[1], P. Narasimha Reddy v. Sub Registrar, Shameerpet Mandal[2], K. Mysooraiah, Cuddapah District[3] and N.V. Venkata Subba Naidu v. Sub Registrar, S & R Dept., Tirupathi[4]. In support of his argument that the police in the course of investigation, has no power to seize the disputed immoveable property, placed reliance on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Amrit Lal Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan[5]. He thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the 1st respondent be directed to receive and register the documents to be presented by the petitioners for registration. The 2nd respondent ﬁled counter. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent reiterating the counter averments submitted that the disproportionate assets case registered against the father of the 1st petitioner and mother. He submitted that as per the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, the police are entitled to seek attachment of the property of an accused by ﬁling proper application before the Court where the matter is pending. He, however, admitted that in the present case, the 2nd respondent has not ﬁled any such applications seeking attachment of the properties of the accused. He submitted that even though they requested the Government of India to accord sanction for ﬁling an application for attaching the property of the accused, as contemplated under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, till date they have not received any communication for the Government of India. He submitted that if the properties which the petitioners sought to alienate are permitted to be alienated, then the 2nd respondent would not be in a position to get the properties attached. Therefore, the 2nd respondent had addressed a letter to the 1st respondent requesting him not to receive and register any documents in relation to the properties mentioned therein, including the properties in question, and no exception can be taken thereto. In support of his contention that under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police have power to seize immoveable property, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy [6]. He, however, admitted that as on today, no notiﬁcation under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been issued by the government, prohibiting the alienation of the properties in question. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the basis of the instructions received by him from the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent, in fact, has received a letter from the 2nd respondent, requesting not to receive and register any documents in relation to the properties mentioned therein. He, however, submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any document for registration, and if any document is presented before him, he shall process the same as per the Rules and Regulations in force under the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act. He further admitted that except in respect of the properties notiﬁed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the 1st respondent has no power to refuse to receive and register the documents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the disproportionate assets case, which is pending on the ﬁle of the CBI/ACB Court, is registered against the father and mother of the 1st petitioner, and though F.I.R. was registered on 27.06.2006, the fact remains, the investigation is not yet completed and no charge sheet is filed. Neither the 1st petitioner nor the 2nd petitioner is shown as accused in the FIR. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the properties in item Nos. 5, 11 and 12 were purchased by the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner out of the ill-gotten money of the father of the 1st petitioner. There is no material placed by the 1st respondent to substantiate such a contention, and in fact, it is the admitted case of the 1st respondent that the investigation is not completed. However, the material ﬁled by the 1st and 2nd petitioners show that they were purchased by them, and those properties are even reﬂected in the Income Tax Returns and Balance Sheets. Further, though under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, the 1st respondent is entitled to seek attachment of the property by ﬁling appropriate application before the Court where the case is pending, the fact remains, the 1st respondent has not ﬁled any such applications, and on the other hand, it is their case that though they addressed letter to the Government of India to accord sanction to ﬁle applications for attachment of the property of the accused, till date no communication or sanction has been received by them. It is the further contention of the 2nd respondent that since the Government of India has not yet granted sanction to them to ﬁle applications for attaching the properties of the accused, they addressed letter dated 30.07.2008 requesting him not to receive and register any document in relation to the properties mentioned therein. This contention of the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. Merely because the Government of India has not accorded any sanction to the 2nd respondent to ﬁle applications for attachment of the property of the accused, is no ground for the 2nd respondent to address such a letter to the 1st respondent, and more so attach the properties of the petitioners, who are not arrayed as accused in the FIR. Under the Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Authority has no power to refuse to register a document when presented for registration. However, he can refuse to register a document, if the properties covered thereby are notiﬁed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which prohibits registration of documents of the properties notiﬁed thereunder. In the instant case, it is the admitted case of the 1st and 2nd respondents that as of today, there is no notiﬁcation issued by the Government under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, prohibiting the registration of the lands in question. This Court in W.P. No. 5556 of 2008, by order dated 01.08.2008 held held that except in respect of the properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Authority has no power whatsoever to refuse to receive and register the documents. There being no dispute that no notiﬁcation under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,1908 having been issued by the Government, prohibiting the registration of the properties in question, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioners, obviously on the basis of the letter dated 30.07.2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent, is illegal and arbitrary and cannot sustained. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent submits that the petitioners have not approached the 1st respondent and did not present any documents for registration, it is the case of the petitioners that when they presented the documents for registration, the 1st respondent refused to receive and register the documents, and therefore, he ﬁled application under the Right to Information Act, requesting him to furnish the information, basing on which he is refusing to receive and register the documents. Admittedly, the 1st respondent in reply to the said letter, issued Memo dated 14.08.2008, communicating the restriction for registering the documents, with respect to the survey numbers in question, by enclosing a copy of the letter dated 30.07.2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent to him, wherein the 2nd respondent had requested the 1st respondent not to receive and register any document with respect to the properties mentioned therein and keep them under suspension, because a case has been registered against the father of the 1st petitioner. If the petitioners did not approach the 1st respondent for registration, and if the 1st respondent did not refuse to register the documents, there was no reason for them to seek information under the Right to Information Act as to the restriction placed for registration of the documents in relation to the properties in question. Thus, it is clear that the 1st respondent refused to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioners because of the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent. Be that as it may, having regard to the stand taken by the 1st respondent that the petitioners has not approached him, and that he would receive and process the documents for registration if the petitioners present them same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent is directed to receive and process the documents to be presented by the petitioners for registration of the ﬂats constructions by them in the properties in Item Nos. 5, 11 and 12 in favour of third parties and register the same, in accordance with law, without reference to the letter dated 30.07.2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent to him, if they are otherwise in order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 22nd September, 2008. KSR [1] 1998 (3) An.W.R. 48 [2] 2005 (2) ALD 807 [3] 2005 (5) ALD 581 [4] 2006 (1) ALD 679 [5] 1998 Crl.L.J. 3032 [6] 1999 Crl.L.J. 4305