IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3760 of 2009 Between: Ravela Muthaiah, S/o. Late Kotaiah, R/o. Jangaon Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Warangal District at Warangal. 2 The Sub Registrar, Jangaon, Warangal District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not registering the plots bearing Nos. 6-1-35 and 6- 1-35/4 totally admeasuring 1968.75 sq. yds in Sy.No. 87 situated at Suryapet Road, Jangaon Town, Warangal District, within the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Jangaon, and not releasing the documents presented by petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith register and release the documents presented by petitioner in respect of the above plots; Award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 3760 of 2009 Order: The petitioner presented certain documents in relation to land in Survey No.87 of Jangaon village and Mandal, Warangal District, for registration before the second respondent on 21.10.2008. The District Collector, Warangal, the first respondent herein, is said to have addressed a letter dated 29.08.2005 to the second respondent to the effect that the documents presented in relation to the land covered and held by Baptist Preston Institute of Old Students Minority Educational Welfare Society shall not be registered. The second respondent addressed a letter dated 15.08.2008 seeking clarification from the first respondent as to the survey numbers and description. It is in this process, the documents presented by the petitioner are not being admitted for registration. The petitioner challenges the inaction of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. After the Registration Act was amended by introduction of Section 22-A through amendment Act 19 of 2007, the role of a District Collector in the context of notifying the properties prohibiting registration is virtually taken away. It is only the properties that are covered by Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section 1 of Section 22-A, that are outside the purview of registration. Even according to the correspondence that had ensued between the respondents, it is evident that the properties covered by the documents do not belong to the Government. The District Collector is not vested with the power to notify any properties under Section 22-A of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to process the documents presented by the petitioner, without reference to any letter, said to have been addressed by the first respondent. No order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Date: 27.02.2009 Nsr