IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5775 of 2008 Between: Smt.Gadu Chinnikumari Lakshmi W/o.Appala Naidu R/o.H.No.11-1-7, Gadu Street, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub REgistrar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2 The District Registrar, Visakhapatnam 3 Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy temple,Padmanabham rep.by its Executive officer-cum-Regional Joint Commissioner cum Executive officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam 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 direction or order more particularly the one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to entertain the registration of the sale deed dated 16.7.2007 executed in the petitioner favour pertaining to Ac.2.36 cents of land in Sy.No.30/1 of Padmanabham village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District only based on a simple letter dated 8.10.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent stating that it is a Devasthanam land without any basis as illegal, arbitrary, unjust ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of constitutional guarantee and to consequently direct the respondents to register and deliver the sale document dated 16.7.2007 executed in the petitioner favour pertaining to the said land of Ac.2.36 cents in Sy.No.30/1 of Padmanabham village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5775 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner purchased land admeasuring Acs.2.36 (out of Acs.4.72) in survey No.30/1 of Padmanabham Village and Mandal in Visakhapatnam District from Goppu Ramayamma, W/o.Late Satyanarayana, and eleven others under a sale deed dated 16.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.5,43,000/-. After paying the stamp duty of Rs.51,735/- by way of bank challan, petitioner presented the sale deed before the first respondent. It appears, he refused to receive the same without issuing any written endorsement. The petitioner was orally informed that in view of the letter of third respondent dated 08.10.2006 stating that the land is temple land, the registration was not done. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that Mamidi Samba Murthy and Goppu Satyanarayana were jointly granted ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, by proceedings dated 23.06.1988. Subsequently, the patta holders partitioned the property, each getting Acs.2.36 cents. After death of Goppu Satyanarayana, his wife – Ramayamma, obtained pattadar pass books. She and other legal heirs offered the land to the petitioner. Therefore, learned Counsel contends that on a mere plea of the third respondent that it is a temple land, registration cannot be stopped. As rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area), statedly, first respondent refused to accept the document for registration. If what the petitioner contends is true, it is not proper. Whenever a document is presented, the first respondent has to accept the document and consider the same whether it can be admitted for registration or not. If for any reason the document cannot be accepted for registration, the reasons are to be recorded duly communicating the same as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act, for brevity). Person aggrieved by refusal is given right of appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the District Registrar, and if any adverse order is passed by the appellate authority, a suit is maintainable under Section 77 of the Act. When the petitioner has such remedies, which in the considered opinion of this Court are effective and efficacious, a writ petition would not lie, especially, when there is a dispute regarding the alienability of the land or the right of the vendors to sell the land. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing first respondent to accept the sale deed dated 16.07.2007 and consider the same regarding its admissibility for registration and pass necessary orders under Section 71 of the Act. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23.12.2008 vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}