IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEL No.1428 of 2009 Between: The Sub-Registrar, Dwarakanaar, Visakhapatnam & another. … Appellants And: M/s. Jayasree Anand Enterprises, Hyderabad & others. …Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants: Government Pleader for Revenue (General). Counsel for the respondents: Sri V. Hari Haran This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1428 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This Writ Appeal is filed against order dated 09.10.2009 in Writ Petition No.19777 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 executed agreement-cum-general power of attorney dated 11.09.1997 in favour of respondent No.1. When the said document was presented for registration, appellant No.1 refused to register the same on the ground that the value of the document should have been on yardage basis and not on acreage basis. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.8660 of 1999 against the said order, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 21.04.1999 giving liberty to it to file an appeal under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed CMA.No.2 of 2000 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, which was dismissed. Later on, appellant No.1 issued notice dated 10.01.2005 calling upon respondent No.1 to pay stamp duty and penalty of Rs.7,16,210=00. In compliance with the said notice, respondent No.1 paid the said amount. However, as the document was not registered by appellant No.1, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.2701 of 2006 for a direction to appellant No.1 to register the agreement of sale-cum-GPA and return the same. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to appellant No.1 to take necessary action within a period of two weeks. Instead of registering the document, appellant No.1 issued endorsement dated 27.04.2006, wherein he sated that the document cannot be registered on the ground that respondent No.1 has not produced “No Objection Certificate” from the urban land ceiling authorities. Questioning the said endorsement, respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.1 of 2006 before appellant No.2. The said appeal was dismissed on 22.07.2006. O.S.No.1396 of 2007 filed by respondent No.1 against the order in O.A.No.1 of 2006 was also dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed Writ Petition No.19777 of 2008. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed with effect from 22.04.2008 and that therefore there was no necessity for respondent No.1 to obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the urban land ceiling authorities. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the land in question is classified as Government poramboke and that therefore the document cannot be registered. From the facts noted above, at no point of time, the appellants have taken the stand that the land belongs to the Government. While in the first place, objection regarding valuation of the document was raised, later its registration was refused on the ground that “No Objection Certificate” from the urban land ceiling authorities was not produced. No documentary evidence has been placed by the appellants to, prima facie, show that the land belongs to the Government. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the appellants to register and release the document in question. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the Government from approaching the competent civil Court for appropriate relief seeking a declaration relief, if in its opinion the land belongs to it. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP.No.2964 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.12.2009 ES