THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5611 of 2009 ORDER: The land in T.S.No.1197/63, Block 56, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam was owned by Smt.P.Savithri Devi W/o late P.V.Jagannatha Raju. It was acquired some time in the year 1968 by the Visakhapatnam Town Planning Trust. Obviously, because part of it was not needed, or otherwise, the same Visakhapatnam Town Planning Trust, re-conveyed the land to an extent of 2156 square yards in favour of Savithri Devi, vide document, dated 22.07.1974. Savithri Devi, in turn, executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of M/s. Anil Constructions on 03.01.1991. Accordingly, a complex of flats was constructed thereon. The petitioner purchased one such Flat No.203 of that complex, through a sale deed, dated 13.12.2006. He intended to sell the flat and approached the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, the second respondent herein, seeking necessary information. The second respondent is said to have informed the petitioner that the land in T.S.No.1197/63 is included in a notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act in G.O.Ms.No.657, dated 08.10.2001, and in that view of the matter, no document would be admitted for registration in relation to the said land. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. This is one of the rare cases where the Government itself conveyed the land through a registered document to the vendor of the petitioner. There is absolutely no doubt about the identity of the property. In the re-conveyance deed, dated 22.07.1974, the property is described as the one in T.S.No.1197/63, Block No.56, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam. The property was developed and the petitioner purchased a flat from none other than the vendee under the re-conveyance deed, dated 22.07.1974. Normally, this Court would not deal with the disputed questions of fact. In the instant case, however, a mere comparison of the documents referred to above, discloses that the Government had acknowledged the title of the vendor of the petitioner and in fact, had re-conveyed the property through registered document. Therefore, the very inclusion of that property under Section 22-A of the Act is absolutely without any basis. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner and process the same for registration without reference to G.O.Ms.No.657, dated 08.10.2001. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.03.2009 kdl