THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.26120 of 2003 Dated: 12.02.2008 Between: M/s. Ravi Constructions, Kurnool, rep. by its Managing Partner H.Babu Venkatesh Prasad. .. Petitioner. And Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool District, Kurnool, and others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.26120 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 17.08.2002, restraining registration of lands in Roza Village, Kurnool District, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently, direct the respondents to entertain and register the sale deeds relating to the lands in Roza Village of Kurnool District. 2. The petitioner stated that the writ petitioner purchased certain lands in 44th ward in old Sy.No.17 and new Sy.No.16 of Roza Village of Kurnool District, through four registered sale deeds. It is also stated that the writ petitioner, after obtaining approval from the concerned authorities, constructed apartments in the said lands, and thereafter, the petitioner sold some of the apartments to various purchasers. When the petitioner went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office to execute the sale deed in favour of the third parties, he was informed by the office of the third respondent that, as per the proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.08.2002, no registration of sale deeds in respect of the lands situated in Roza Village is permissible. The impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent are without any authority of law and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to restrain the Sub-Registrars from effecting registration of the sale deeds, especially, on some complaint given by the Muslim Service Society. The provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, do not empower the first respondent to give a direction prohibiting registration of the lands, on the ground that those lands are Wakf properties. Since the writ petitioner is the owner of the lands and since its right to sell the property is restrained by reason of the impugned proceedings, it is compelled to approach this Court. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents contended that when it is a known fact that the lands in Roza Village belong to Wakf, the private parties are not supposed to get the lands registered in favour of the third parties. The learned Government Pleader filed a notification published in official Gazette on 08.06.2007 informing that the lands of Roza Village are shown as the lands belonging to Dargah. 4. The petitioner is claiming that the said lands are private properties, whereas the respondents are contending that they belong to Dargah. Since there is a disputed question of fact regarding the title of the property, the writ petition itself cannot be entertained and the remedy for the petitioner is to seek declaration regarding the title of the property to enable him to get the lands registered in favour of third parties. The petitioner did not produce any document before the Sub- Registrar for registration. As per the representation given by the Muslim Service Society to the first respondent, the first respondent by the impugned proceedings ordered that all registrations should be necessarily made only mentioning the survey numbers irrespective of the property by the Sub-Registrars in future and, accordingly, all the Sub-Registrars in the District were requested to put an end to the procedure of registering the lands with layout or flat numbers. Since the petitioner did not produce any document before the Sub-Registrar, and no order was invited from the Sub-Registrar, no order in this writ petition can be passed directing the respondents to register the documents for transfer of title. 5. In the light of the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to produce the document before the Sub-Registrar, and the Sub-Registrar, after scrutiny of the said document, shall pass appropriate orders, and if there is any grievance for the petitioner on the order passed by the Sub-Registrar, he is at liberty to question the same as per law. __________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU,J) 12th February, 2008. v v