IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26702 of 2008 Between: K. Kishore Reddy S/o. K. Anantha Reddy R/o. H.No. 5-5-96, Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad, Nizamabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Registrar Hyderabad District Hyderabad. 2 The Sub Registrar Bowenpally Secunderabad. 3 The District Collector Hyderabad District Hyderabad. 4 Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 5 The Tahsildar Maredpally Mandal Secunderabad. .....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, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the sale deed dated 26- 8-1995 vide proceedings Refusal No. 1/07 dated 12-7-2007 in respect of land in Sy. No. 74/5, admeasuring 444.44 Square Yards forming part of M/s. Santosh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. situated at East Maredpally, Secunderabad as being arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to register and release the same after due registration. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26702 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner purchased 444.44 square yards in survey No.74/5 situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, under sale deed dated 26.08.1995. When the same was presented for registration, second respondent appears to have referred the same under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. On such reference, first respondent determined the value at Rs.1,600/- per square yard, aggrieved by which, petitioner successfully filed an appeal before the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Market value was fixed at Rs.800/- per square yard. Petitioner then approached second respondent duly paying stamp duty at that rate. The same was not received. Therefore, petitioner filed W.P.No.14787 of 2004. This Court by order, dated 02.03.2007, directed the respondents to collect stamp duty and registration fee and release the document. When the same was not done, petitioner filed C.C.No.567 of 2007. During the pendency of the same, second respondent vide endorsement, being Refusal No.1 of 2007, dated 12.07.2007, informed that registration is refused as per revised notification in Gazette publication No.352, dated 20.06.2007. Aggrieved by the same, after lapse of more than a year, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to second respondent to register and release the document in question. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader. The sale deed under which the petitioner purchased the land was not accepted for registration on the ground that such registration is prohibited by notification vide Gazette publication No.352, dated 20.06.2007, being opposed to public policy. The said notification was obviously issued purportedly under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act, for brevity), as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act No.4 of 1999. This provision has been declared ultra vires by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch, dated 07.12.2005. However, whether the impugned order is justified or not is a matter which has to be gone into with reference to law as in force after the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch, dated 07.12.2005. In the initial stage, petitioner, therefore, has to avail remedy under Section 72 of the Act by filing appeal before the first respondent. Even if the appeal is rejected, there is remedy to file a suit under Section 77 of the Act. Having regard to the effective alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the first respondent within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such appeal is filed, first respondent may entertain the same and pass appropriate orders. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.12.2008 vs To 1 The District Registrar Hyderabad District Hyderabad. 2 The Sub Registrar Bowenpally Secunderabad. 3 The District Collector Hyderabad District Hyderabad. 4 Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 5 The Tahsildar Maredpally Mandal Secunderabad. 6 2CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 7 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}