IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:7863 of 2002 Between: 1 M.Dakshanamurthy S/o.M.Ragavaiah Welfare Association R/o.LIG No.1046,K.P.H.B.Colony,Kukatpally,Hyderabad 2 P.S.Krishnaiah S/o.P.T.Venkaiah R/o.H.No.2-22-226,Jayanagar,Kukatpally Hyderabad 3 K.Bakka Reddy S/o.Late Gundu Reddy R/o.H.No.6-3-418,Punjagutta Hyderabad 4 Sri Sai Nagar Plot Owners Welfare Association rep.by its Sri.M.Dakshanamurthy,Reg.No.2352/97. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector R.R.Dsit. Hyderabad 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Serilingampally Mandal R.R.Dist 3 The Joint Sub-Registrar Moosapet R.R.Dist. 4 The Hyderabadd Urban Development Authority rep.through its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director at Paiga Palace,Rasoolpura,Secunderabad. 5 Serilingampally Municipality rep.through its Commissioner at Serilingampally R.R.Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. V.K.SHIVASANKAR FOR MR. K.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare letter, dated 29.01.2000 of respondent No.1 whereby he directed respondent No.3 not to entertain any transactions / registrations / layout approval etc., in connection with the lands in Survey Nos.44 and 119 of Maktha Mahaboobpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. A perusal of the impugned letter shows that respondent No.1 directed respondent No.3 not to entertain any transaction/layout approval/registration in respect of the lands situated in the above mentioned survey numbers as the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District proposed to take up revision under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short ‘the Act 1317 Fasli’). The law is well settled that respondent No.3, who is a functionary under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the 1908 Act’) is bound to register a document, when the same is presented before him, subject to the provisions of the said Act. Unless he ﬁnds any legal impediment under the provisions of the 1908 Act to register the document, he cannot withhold such registration merely on the basis of the instructions given by the other functionaries unconnected with the registration of documents under the provisions of the 1908 Act. I am fortiﬁed, in this view of mine, by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mandadi Nirmala and another v. District Collector, Hyderabad and others [1]. Following the same, respondent No.3 is directed to entertain and register the documents presented by the petitioners subject to the provisions of the 1908 Act and the Rules made thereunder and the notiﬁcations, if any issued from time to time. The registration, if any made shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, who proposed to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 166-B of the Act 1317 Fasli for cancellation of supplementary sethwar. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9824 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni [1] 2000(2) ALD 725 (DB)