IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4466 of 2008 Between: B.K.V.Sekhar Reddy S/o B.K. Peddi Reddy R/o W. Kothapally Village, Dornipadu Mandal, Koilkuntla Taluk, Kurnool district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. 2 The District Registrar, Stamps & Registration, Kurnool. 3 The Sub-Registrar, Stamps & Registration, Kurnool. ...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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not accepting any documents for registration relating to Sy. No. 778/A1 and Sy. No. 778/A2 of Kalluru Village, Kurnool District basing on the impugned proceedings Rc. No. E8/2262/2002, dated 17- 08-2002 of the 1st Respondent-District collector as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and pass such other and further orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner statedly is the owner and possessor of an extent of 485.81 square yards of site in Ward No.45, Ashok Nagar in Sy.No.778/A1 of Kurnool having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document number 17355/2006 dated 18.12.2006 from Sri Sai Priya Estates, Kurnool. He intended to sell the said property and entered into agreements of sale. When he approached the third respondent for registration of the said documents, he was informed that registration regarding the subject land cannot be done in view of the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.No.E8/2262/2002, dated 17.08.2002, aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General). It is no doubt true that when a document is presented, it is incumbent on the part of the Registering Officer to examine the same with reference to Sections 31 to 36 of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act, for brevity) and/or Rules 26 and 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Act. This aspect of the matter was considered by my learned brother Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy in W.P.No.15199 of 2004, dated 01.09.2004. Following the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent or any other Registering Officer to accept the document presented by the petitioner and consider for registration. Be it noted, if for any reason, the document presented is not registered, it is incumbent on the part of the Registering Officer to record and furnish reasons under Section 71 of the Act. Even thereafter, if the petitioner has any grievance, he may file appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 72 of the Act. Thereafter, if any adverse order is passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner can file a suit under Section 77 of the Act. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.10.3.2008 Note: Furnish CC in two days. (B/o) msv