THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9701 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by inclusion of land in Sy.No.267 of Dakkamarri Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in G.O.Ms.No.1011, dated 01.10.2003, issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, in exercise of power under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims that the land held by him is purely private property and that the respondents have absolutely no right over the subject land. It is also stated that the provision, under which the G.O. was issued, has not mentioned, and in that view of the matter, the notification itself does not have any legal basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Registering Authority is not entertaining the document, in relation thereto, on the strength of the impugned notification. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The impugned notification was issued in exercise of power under Section 22-A of the Act, before it came to be substituted by a different provision. It is true that Section 22-A of the Act, as it stood, when the impugned notification was issued, was struck down by this Court, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basanth Nahata[1]. The matter, however, did not rest, at that. The A.P. State Legislature added another provision, for the same principle, but with different content. Apart from stipulating the categories of land, as regards which, registration of documents is prohibited, the new provision validated the notifications, issued under the earlier one. Therefore, the impugned notification has the backing of the existing provision. As long as the notification stands, or the land of the petitioner is included in it, the Registering Authority cannot be compelled to admit the document, in relation to the land, so included. In case the petitioner has sufficient material to demonstrate that the land held by him is purely private in nature, he can certainly place the same before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent can verify the matter objectively, and if it emerges that the petitioner has clear title, and that the Government has no right over the lands, he can issue necessary proceedings, directing deletion of the relevant survey number from the purview of the notification. If the request is not acceded to, the petitioner has to establish his title in accordance with law, be it, by filing suit, or otherwise. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a representation before the 1st respondent with supporting material, requesting to delete his land from the purview of the impugned notification. The 1st respondent, in turn, shall pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period two months from the date of receipt of such representation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:01.05.2009. GJ [1] AIR 2005 SC 3401=(2005) 12 SCC 77