HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 32196 OF 2010 . DATED-----------March, 2011 BETWEEN Government Drivers Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society, Karimnagar,rep. by its President Mulukala Devaiah …Petitioner and The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 32196 OF 2010 . ORDER: Assailing the letter vide No.E1/187/2006, dated 13.12.2010, whereby the first respondent directed the third respondent---Sub Registrar, not to entertain registration in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.4.27 guntas comprised in Sy.No. 142 of Chinkunta village of Karimangar Mandal and District, this Writ Petition is field. The petitioner-society was registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co- operative Societies Act 30 of 1995 vide Registration No.AMC/KNR/DCO/2005/1681, dated 7.5.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 340, dated 26.02.2009 allotted government land to an extent of Ac.4.27 guntas in Sy. No.142 of Chinthakunta village of Karimnagar Mandal in its favour for the purpose of allotment of house sites to its members on payment of basic value of Rs.82.500/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent No.E2/187/2007, dated 16.6.2009 directing the Tahsildar to hand over the possession of the subject land to the petitioner- society duly collecting the basic value in the treasury and to collect the list of eligible beneficiaries, the possession of the subject land was handed over to the petitioner-society by conducting panchanama on 29.06.2009 vide proceedings No.E/2889/2002. It is its further case that albeit after preparing the lay-out, the ex-president of the petitioner- society has executed sale deeds in favour its 31 members delivering the vacant possession to them, as of now 19 sale deed documents are pending with the third respondent. The grievance of the petitioner-society is that pursuant to the representation of the second respondent, the District Collector vide letter No. E1/187/2006, dated 13.12.2010 directed the third respondent not to entertain registration in respect of the subject land till further orders. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the first respondent having directed the Tahsildar to hand over the subject land to the petitioner-society, did not act properly in directing to stop registration in respect of the subject land. He points out that the possession of the subject land was already delivered to the petitioner-society by receiving the market value and pursuant to the same, the petitioner-society already made some registrations and therefore passing of the impugned order at this stage is arbitrary and illegal. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in P.NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. SUB-REGISTRAR {2005(2) ALD 807}, and, KUNCHANAPALLI MYSOORAIAH VS. SUB- REGISTRAR {2005 (5) ALD 581}, the learned Counsel further submits that the sub-registrar being a statutory authority cannot refuse to register a document at the dictation of an extraneous authority and refusal to register the sale deeds of the petitioner on the direction of an extraneous authority is not legal and hence directions be given to the third respondent to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land in favour of its members, if the same are otherwise in order and in accordance with law. He further submits that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title as long as the Government has not issued any notification as contemplated under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and therefore the third respondent is bound to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner-society. Heard. Perused the case file. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 340, Revenue (Assign.VI) Department, dated 26.02.2009 allotted the subject land in favour of the Government Drivers Association, Karimnagar, for allotment of house sites to its members. The relevant portion of the said Government Order reads as under: “ Government after careful examination of the proposals of the Collector, Karimnagar District as recommended by the Empowered Committee as well as Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad, hereby accord for allotment of land to an extent of Ac.4.27 Gts in Sy.No. 142 abandoned shikam of Chintakunta village of Karimnagar Mandal and District in favour of Government Drivers Association, Karimnagar for house sites to their members on payment of basic value of Rs.82,500/-per acre subject to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration guidelines regarding procedure to be complied with regarding enrollment of members etc.,.” Thereafter, the first respondent vide proceedings No.E2/187/2007, dated 16.06.2009 directed the Tahsildar, Karimnagar to handover the possession of the subject land to the President, Cooperative Society of Government Drivers Association, Karimanagar. Accordingly, the Tahsildar vide order dated 1.7.2009 handed over the possession of the subject land to the President of Cooperative Society of District Drivers Association, Karimnagar. Be that as it may, the in-charge president of the second respondent—A.P. Govt. Vehicle Drivers Association, Karimnagar, has represented before the first respondent that one Mr. M.Devaiah, Ex.President, Government Drivers Association, Karimnagar, (petitioner herein) who retired from service, has illegally allotted plots to the members of the society by collecting amounts and registering the same without making any lay- outs. Upon the said representation, the first respondent took the matter on file and aftercareful examination of the subject matter, came to the conclusion that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 340, dated 26.02.2009 accorded permission to allot subject land in favour of Government Drivers Association, Karimnagar, whereas Mr. Devaiah, is the Chairman of A.P. Government Vehicles Drivers Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society, Karimnagar, and that the nomenclature as mentioned in the said Government Order and the society registered are different. The first respondent, therefore, instructed the Joint Sub Registrar not to entertain the registrations in respect of the subject land till further orders. From a perusal of the above proceedings, the instructions issued by the first respondent vide impugned order is only an interim measure and the dispute that arises between the petitioner and the second respondent has not been adjudicated yet. It is left open for the petitioner and second respondent to put forth their case before the first respondent and get clearance. As far as the next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is to be seen, the third respondent-Sub-Registrar filed counter, denying the averments made in the Writ Petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that no further document is presented by the petitioner for registration and that if any document is presented, it will be processed in accordance with law. It is apt to extract the relevant portion of the counter affidavit, which reads thus: “…it is submitted that this respondent registered 31 documents by verifying the contents mentioned in the documents and treating them as they are in order. It is not correct to say that 19 documents are pending with this respondent. Not a single document is pending with this respondent.The respondent No.1 issued a letter to District Registrar, Karimnagar, directing him to issue directions to the Joint Sub-Registrar not to allow registration in Sy.No. 142 of Chinthakunta as the petitioner is not entitled to register the documents on behalf of the said society as he was retired from service without making layout and the said letter in No.E1/187/2006, dt. 13.12.2010 has been committed by the District Registrar, Karimnagar to this authority. Sincke then all the transctions in Sy.No. 142 of Chinthakunta village are stopped as there is a dispute among the petitioner and the second respondent- society. In reply to para Nos. 6 and 7, it is submitted that no further document is presented before this respondent for registration and if the document is presented, it would be processed as per Registration Act. At the time of registration of documents, this respondent had verified the bye-laws and Registration Certificate of the society in which the nomenclature of the society is shown as Government Drivers Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, having its Registration No.AMC/KNR/DCO/2005/1681 and in G.O.Ms.No. 340, dated 26.02.2009 also the land is allotted to Government Drivers Association and at the time of handing over the possession of property the petitioner acted as a representative of said society. But as per the orders of the first respondent, rival claims of the parties are pending before the first respondent, the petitioner without getting clearance from the first respondent, approached this Honourable Cout……” In view of the stand taken by the third respondent in his counter affidavit that no further document is presented for registration and if any document is presented, it will be processed in accordance with the Registration Act, the grievance of the petitioner does not stand to scrutiny in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, there is no need to go into the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated -------March, 2011. Msnro