IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18925 of 2008 Between: B.Srinivasulu S/o.Subbanna R/o.8/385 A, Gooty Town, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Sub Registrar, Gooty, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT 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 proceedings dt. 6.8.2008 in Endt.No.Nil/Gooty/2008 on the ﬁle of the Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the Respondent to forthwith register the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 425/A/2, 425/B and 426 admeasuring Ac.3.96 1/2 cents situated at Gooty Town, Anantapur District, as and when the documents are presented by Petitioner; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner questioning the endorsement dated 6.8.2008 issued by the respondent – Sub-Registrar, Ananthapur intimating the petitioner that the lands in Sy.Nos.425 A/2, 425 B and 426 of Gooty (Rural), Ananthapur District cannot be registered until N.O.C. is issued by the District Collector, Ananthapur. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the subject matter of lands admeasuring Ac.3.96 ½ cents situated in Sy.Nos.425 A/2, 425 B and 426 of Gooty (Rural), Ananthapur District having purchased the same under registered sale deeds on 10.7.2008 and, in order to sell the said land to third paties, when he approached the respondent in the month of August, 2008, the later refused to register the said lands and in that connection he made a representation on 6.8.2008 to the respondent requesting to intimate him the reasons for refusal of registration, in response to which, the impugned proceedings were issued. A perusal of the impugned endorsement shows that the Collector, Ananthapur issued notice to SRO Gooty on 21.7.2008 and, therefore, the Sub-Registrar directed the petitioner to obtain ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the Collector, Ananthapur. However, the notice dated 21.7.2008 is only a notice stating that the revision petition ﬁled by one C.Veerabhadrayya and four others is posted for hearing on 28.7.2008 and, therefore, the revision petitioner and the respondent therein were directed to appear before the Joint Collector, Ananthapur on 28.8.2008 at Collector’s Oﬃce, Ananthapur with relevant record. That apart, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that another writ petition being W.P.No.21189 of 2008 was ﬁled by the owners of the lands, which are adjacent to the subject matter of lands when the registering authority refused to register their lands and this Court after taking into consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel therein has held as under; “Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and in my view rightly that respondent Nos.1 and 3 have absolutely no jurisdiction to address such a letter to respondent No.2. Even a direction under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 can be given only in cases where a notiﬁcation was issued by the State Government including therein the lands, which are prohibited from being registered. A perusal of the impugned letter does not suggest that any such notiﬁcation in respect of the land in question is issued and in existence. In view of the same, the impugned letter suﬀers from legal inﬁrmity and jurisdictional error and the same is accordingly set aside, leaving respondent No.2 free to register the document presented by the petitioner.” Admittedly, the Sub-Registrar has no power or authority to refuse to register the documents presented before him until and unless a notiﬁcation is issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act prohibiting registration of certain lands and since in the instance case no such notiﬁcation is issued and also in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21189 of 2008 dated 26.9.2008 the impugned endorsement dated 6.8.2008 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Gooty cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside and the respondent is directed to entertain the document presented by the petitioner and process the same if it is otherwise in order. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.06.11.2008 NOTE: Furnish CC in one week (B/o) msv