IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.24435 of 2008 Between: V. Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Gopal Rao, R/o. Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopet, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2 The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 3 Veeravalli Sreemannarayana, S/o. V. Shankariah, R/o. Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents not to execute any sale deeds so far as the property to an extent Ac. 1.23 of land situated in D.Nos.300/A/B1b, A2, A-A1 revised sub divisional Nos.300/A2B, A3b, A/B1, B2, A/B1, A2A and A3A at Kesanupalli Grampanchayat, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District submitted by the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MD.SALEEM Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.24435 OF 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that himself and the 3rd respondent have jointly purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1.78 cents in D.Nos.300/A/B1b, A2, A-A1, revised sub divisional Nos.300/A2B, A3b, A/B1 B2, A/B1, A2A and A3A, situated at Kesanupalli Grampanchayat, Narasaraopet Mandal of Guntur District, through an agreement of sale dated 10.04.2008 for a valid consideration of Rs.41,75,000/- per acre, and have paid an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- to the owners on the same day towards part of sale consideration and possession was also delivered in their favour, subject to execution of sale deed on payment of balance of sale consideration. It is his further case that subsequently certain diﬀerences arose between him and the 3rd respondent with regard to their respective shares in the said property, and that the 3rd respondent, having colluded with the original owners of the said property, sold an extent of 0.55 cents, out of the subject property, to one Shaik Fareed, without his knowledge, for which civil suits were ﬁled, and is also trying to sell the remaining extent of the subject property. Therefore, he submitted representations dated 03.10.2008 and 16.10.2008 to the respondents 1 and 2, District Registrar and Joint Sub-Registrar respectively of Narasaraopet, Guntur District, requesting them not to entertain any documents presented by the 3rd respondent for registration of the remaining extent of the subject property i.e. Ac.1.23 cents of land. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his representations, the 1st and 2nd respondents are proceeding with registration of sale deeds in respect of the subject property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. The law is well settled that there is no power conferred on the registering authority to refuse to register a document when presented for registration, except in respect of the classes of documents mentioned in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which are prohibited from being registered and for the circumstances as mentioned in Section 35 thereof. If the registering authority is allowed to refuse to register the documents, it amounts to permitting him to decide title disputes, which power, admittedly, is vested in the Civil Courts. Therefore, no direction can be given to the 1st and 2nd respondents not to register the documents presented by the 3rd respondent. If the petitioner feels that his rights would be adversely aﬀected in case the documents presented by the 3rd respondent in respect of the subject property are registered, he can avail the remedies available to him under law before the competent Civil Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of any documents in respect of the property in question, he is at liberty to avail the remedies available to him under law before the competent Civil Court. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 7th November, 2008 IBL