IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20570 of 2008 Between: Sri O.Krishna Reddy S/o.O.Yellappa Reddy R/o.Door No.8-104/A,Satyanarayanapuram Rajeev nagar panchayat , Tirupathi Urban mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Registrar, Chittoor District 2 The Sub-Registrar (Stamps and Registration) Renigunta, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering while presented the sale deed executed by the petitioner in respect of the properties to an extent of Ac.5.30 gts on the alleged ground that the Revenue oﬃcials should conﬁrm the existence of said survey No.411/11 to register any deeds of conveyance as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from the various judgments of the Hon`ble Supreme court, as well as this Hon`ble court, and consequentially direct the respondents to register the deed of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner receiving the necessary application in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI N.NANDA KISHORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20570 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Tirupathi. He allegedly purchased plot Nos.1 to 200 in Sree Venkateswara Colony from M/s.Battaiah, M.Muniramaiah, M.Chengaiah, M.Munaswamy, M.Venkata Subbaiah represented by General Power of Attorney Holder K.Venkata Ramana. The purchase is allegedly under an agreement of sale, dated 11.07.2008. The petitioner and his vendors allegedly went to the Oﬃce of the second respondent for registration when they were orally informed that the second respondent would not entertain the request for registration of the agreement of sale in view of the fact that he had received information from revenue Oﬃcials that the land in survey No.411/11 is not existing in the revenue records. This action is assailed in the writ petition. At the stage of admission itself, the second respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit denying the petition averments. It is stated that petitioner has not presented any document and that the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on 20.10.2008, but no reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled. Therefore, counter averments stand unrebutted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a vehement submission that second respondent cannot refuse registration of agreement of sale on the ground that survey No.411/11 of Settipally Village is not existing in the revenue records and that as many as 20 documents pertaining to the land in same survey numbers were already registered by second respondent. This question, however, cannot be gone into at this stage. In view of the relief claimed by the petitioner, it may be reiterated that the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the second respondent in not registering the agreement of sale is illegal and arbitrary and a consequential direction to respondents to register agreement of sale. It is ultimately for the second respondent to consider registering the document, and if for any reason it cannot be registered, he has to give reasons in writing and communicate to the person presenting the document. In case a person is aggrieved by such non-registration, Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides an appeal to the District Registrar, and thereafter, a suit is also provided. In this case, however, this stage has not reached. Petitioner, according to second respondent, has not even presented any document. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the second respondent and present the document duly stamped. As and when the same is presented, second respondent may consider the same and pass necessary orders, and if for any reason the same cannot be registered, second respondent has to record and furnish reasons under Section 71 of the Registration Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.11.2008 vs To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Registrar, Chittoor District 2 The Sub-Registrar (Stamps and Registration) Renigunta, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District 3 2CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}