IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18482 of 2008 Between: J.Hyamavathi W/o.J.Mallikarjuna Rao D.No.4/4/707/A Nehrunagar Tirupathi Town & Municipality Chittoor Distirct ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Chittoor District 2 The Tahasildar Tirupathi Urban (M) Tirupathi Chittoor District 3 The Sub Registrar Renigunta Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any writ or direction more particuarly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the respondent No.2 to permit the registration of document of transfer by Respondent No.3 in respect of property covered by Sy.No.78/2A admeasuring ac 0.07 1/2 cts in Mangalam(V) Tirupathi Revenue Mandal Chittoor District by declaring the proceedings of 2nd respondent in L.Dis(A) 1007/08 dt.16-7-2008 as illegal colourable arbitrary and untenable and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.GOPALA KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18482 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.0.07½ cents of land in Sy.No.78/2A of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District, under two separate sale deeds from two individuals by name Raghavachari and Guravaiah. She intended to sell that land and executed a sale deed in favour of her purchaser. The document was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, third respondent, for registration. Alleging that the third respondent is refusing to receive the document and register the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2082 of 2008 before this Court. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 10.06.2008 directing the third respondent to receive the document and process it accordingly. It was also left open to him to make endorsement, in case, there exists any objections for registering the document. It is in this context the third respondent made an endorsement dated 01.08.2008. He observed that a communication was received from the Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi, to the effect that the land in Sy.No.78/2A admeasuring Ac.27.14 cents is classified as AWD and Section 22- A of the Registration Act gets attracted. Mention is also made about the market value. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the endorsement made by the third respondent. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed reiterating their contentions that the entire land in Sy.No.78/2A admeasuring Ac.27.14 cents is classified as AWD and owned by the Government and that no document can be registered in relation thereto. Heard Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Strenuous effort is made on behalf of the petitioner to convince this Court that whatever be the nature of the land, the remaining extent of the land in Sy.No.78/2 to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents, covered by Sub-division in Sy.No.78/2A, is a patta land and the one purchased by the petitioner is part of it. The petitioner places reliance upon the entries in certain revenue records, which are made in favour of one Chandamarai Kamalamma, who is said to be the vendor of the petitioner’s vendor. However, an entry in the revenue records cannot be equated to a title deed nor can it be treated as a factor to decide the nature of the land. Much would depend on the existence of the title deeds or other sources of title. In case, the petitioner is able to satisfy any superior revenue authorities or a civil Court that the land in question takes the character of patta land, the third respondent can review his decision and he can be compelled to take the document for registration. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the superior revenue authorities or the civil Court seeking declaration about the nature of the land covered by the document. As and when it emerges that the land is not held by the government, the petitioner can approach the third respondent once again and necessary action can be taken for registration. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.02.2009 Note:Furnish copy within one week bo usd