IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17115 of 2004 Between: K. Ravindra Rao S/o late Rama Kotaiah r/o LIG 308, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1Sub-registrar of Assurances, O/o Sub- Registrar office, Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District 2The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District O/o Sub Registrar, PeddaAmberpet, RR District 3The District Collector Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 4Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy District 5Smt. Jakka Hamsamma W/o late Janardhana Reddy R/o Gandicheruvu Village Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 6Jakka Madhava Reddy S/o Late Janardhana Reddy R/o Gandicheruvu Village Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 7Jakka Jaipal Reddy S/o janardhana reddy R/o Gandicheruvu Village Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 8Jakka Ranga Reddy S/o Janardhana reddy R/o Gandicheruvu Village Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 9Jakka Srikanth Reddy S/o Janardhana reddy being minor rep by his mother and natural guardian 5th res R/o Gandicheruvu Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed to set aside proceedings, dated 20.06.2003 of respondent No.1 whereby he rejected the request of the petitioner for registering the agreement of sale cum GPA. The petitioner presented an agreement of sale cum GPA before respondent No.1 for registration. Respondent No.1 accepted the same, but kept it pending without registration as document No.43 of 2002 and subsequently by proceedings, dated 31.03.2003 he refused to receive the said document on the ground that respondent No.4 addressed communication, dated 16.08.1995 wherein he stated that the land in question is a Government land. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 on 17.07.2003 questioning the said order. Simultaneously, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 for issuing no-objection certificate. Accepting the petitioner’s request, respondent No.3 issued proceedings, dated 22.05.2003 wherein he conveyed no objection for registration of the land in question on the ground that it is a patta land. When the petitioner approached respondent No.2 along with the said no objection certificate with a request to allow his appeal, the said request was rejected by proceedings, dated 30.10.2003 on the ground that the appeal was not filed within 30 days from the date of order of refusal. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that as the petitioner failed to produce no objection certificate from the revenue authorities, registration was refused and reasons for such refusal were furnished on 31.03.2003; that an appeal against an order of refusal lies under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 and that since the appeal filed against order, dated 20.06.2003 passed by respondent No.1 refusing to register was rejected, it was not permissible for respondent No.1 to register the land in question by altering his own order. The fact that respondent No.3 issued no objection certificate is not disputed by any of the respondents. The respondents have also not disputed the authenticity of the said certificate. The only ground on which registration was refused by respondent No.1 was that respondent No.4 raised an objection that the land in question is a Government land. Respondent No.3, who is the superior officer of respondent No.4, had himself given no objection certificate, which in my considered opinion, ought to have been considered by respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is the failure of respondent No.2 to grant the relief, which the petitioner deserved in the appeal, that made respondent No.1 to refuse to register, understandably, for the reason that having passed an order of rejection earlier, he does not have the power of review. If respondent No.2 felt constrained to entertain the appeal, which according to him was time-barred, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief in view of the fact that respondent No.3 admitted that the land is a private land. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to register the land in question in favour of the petitioner and release the document, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 24th June, 2008. kvni