THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22369 of 2010 Date: 14.12.2010 Between: Buddi Buchi Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the letter dated 16.08.2010 of respondent No.2 for not releasing the pending document Nos.742 and 743 of 2009 dated 03.05.2005 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.5 guntas in survey No.522 of Maheshwaram Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. I have heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents. The aforementioned land is the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner, who claims to be the pattadar on one hand and the protected tenants on the other. A certificate issued under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in favour of the protected tenants was subject matter of C.R.P.No.2713 of 2005 in this Court. During the pendency of the said C.R.P., the petitioner submitted two sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid land before respondent No.2 for registration. In view of an order of status quo granted in the C.R.P., respondent No.2 has kept the documents pending registration and accordingly informed the same to the petitioner, vide his order dated 26.06.2010. The said C.R.P. was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the primary authority for fresh enquiry, vide order dated 23.07.2010. Thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No.2 with a letter dated 16.08.2010 to release the documents. By the impugned communication, respondent No.2 has stated that while disposing of the revision petition, this Court has not given a direction to release the pending documents and therefore, he has declined to release the documents. Though time was granted twice, no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. In my opinion, the ground on which respondent No.2 refused to release the documents cannot be sustained. Under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 is bound to register any document unless the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act are attracted. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that any such grounds are attracted to the present case. Even if respondent No.2 was justified in refusing to release the documents on the ground of existence of an order of status quo, with the allowing of C.R.P.No.2713 of 2005 in favour of the petitioner, the legal constraint if any in the way of respondent No.2 for registration of the documents ceased to exist. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.2 to release the documents to the petitioner after registration. It is, however, made clear that the registration of the documents will not affect the rights of the protected tenants, which need to be determined by the competent authority. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28523 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th December, 2010 GHN